Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1447 (ALL)

Ram Chandra v. Joint Director Consolidation

2024-05-28

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1.Heard Mr. Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kirty Kumar Nirkhi and Mr. Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2.The brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plots of Khata Nos. 107, 382, 417, 419, 421. In the basic year of the Consolidation operation khata No.107 was recorded in the name of Bhabuti Lal and Misrilal, sons of Ram Sahai, Babu Ram, Chhadamilal and Chhotelal, sons of Ram Dayal and Jalim son of Bhuppi, khata No.382 was recorded in the name of Baburam, Chhadami Lal and Chhote Lal sons of Ram Dayal, Khata No.417 was recorded in the name of Bhabutilal and Misri Lal sons of Ram Sahai, Khata No.419 was recorded in the name of Bhabuti Lal, Misri Lal sons of Ram Sahai and Baburam, Chhadamilal and Chhotelal sons of Ram Dayal and Khata No.421 was recorded in the name of Bhabuti Lal and Misri Lal sons of Ram Sahai and Babu Ram and Chhadami son of Ram Dayal. The family pedigree which is mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the writ petition will be also relevant for perusal, which is as under: 3. Against the basic year entry of the plots of the aforementioned khatas objections under Section-9-A (2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act) were filed, which were registered as Case Nos. 114, 457, 9989, 502, 507. The parties to the dispute have entered into compromise accordingly, Consolidation Officer has passed the order for recording the name of all the family branches. In respect to khata No.107, Consolidation Officer passed the order on 26.10.1968 in Case No.114. In respect to khata No.382 Consolidation Officer passed the order on 12.10.1968 in case No.457. In respect to khata No.417, Consolidation Officer passed the order on 13.10.1968 in case No.9989. The Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 18.10.1968 in respect to khata No. 419 in case No. 502 and in respect to khata no.421 order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 18.10.1968 in case No.507. Sumer (father of petitioner No.2) had executed a sale deed on 29.04.1977 in favour of petitioner No.1 (son in- law of Sumer). The Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 18.10.1968 in respect to khata No. 419 in case No. 502 and in respect to khata no.421 order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 18.10.1968 in case No.507. Sumer (father of petitioner No.2) had executed a sale deed on 29.04.1977 in favour of petitioner No.1 (son in- law of Sumer). Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer as mentioned above, five appeals under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act were filed by respondent No.2 Misri and father of respondent No.3 Chhadami Lal along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 9 years which were registered as Appeal Nos. 108, 109, 110, 111 and 112 under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned appeals were consolidated and heard together by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In appeals, objections were filed that appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as there is inordinate delay of 9 years in filing the appeals and village is at a verge of denotification as such the appeals should be dismissed. Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 17.09.1979 has dismissed the aforementioned appeals. Against order order 17.09.1979 revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act were filed by contesting respondents before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which were registered as revision Nos.8/1217, 9/1218, 10/1219, 11/1220, 12/1221. The aforementioned revisions were consolidated and heard together. The Joint Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.03.1981 allowed the revision setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation Officer as well as Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter before consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their cases. Against the order dated 25.03.1981 restoration application dated 27.03.1981 was filed on behalf of petitioners which has been dismissed vide order dated 17.06.1993. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.03.1981 and 17.06.1993 passed by respondent No.1/Joint Director of Consolidation. 4. This Court entertained the matter on 28.09.1993 and stayed the further proceeding pursuant to remand order dated 25.03.1981. 5. In pursuance of the order dated 28.09.1995, parties have exchanged their pleadings. 6. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.03.1981 and 17.06.1993 passed by respondent No.1/Joint Director of Consolidation. 4. This Court entertained the matter on 28.09.1993 and stayed the further proceeding pursuant to remand order dated 25.03.1981. 5. In pursuance of the order dated 28.09.1995, parties have exchanged their pleadings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that khata in question as well as khata Nos.548 106, 108, 109, 418 and 420 are joint and ancestral property, as such all three branches are entitled to be recorded over the plot in question. He further submitted that khata Nos.548, 106, 108, 109, 418, 420 were recorded exclusively in the name of Sumer accordingly in title objection compromise has taken place between the parties for recording name of all the parties on the all 11 khata including khata in dispute accordingly, Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed the order for recording the name of all the branches of the family in respect to 11 khata vide orders dated 26.10.1968, 12.10.1968, 13.10.1968, 18.10.1968. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 26.10.1968 and others, revenue record was corrected and parties came in possession according to the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 26.10.1968 and others. He further submitted that highly time barred appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed in respect to five khata only by some of the branches of the family when the village was at the verge of denotifiation, accordingly, Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case has dismissed the appeals filed by contesting respondents. He submitted that appellate court has also considered the fact that only some of the parties have filed appeals after nine years in respect to five khatas in spite of the fact that there was full knowledge of the order passed by Assistant consolidation Officer to the concern party. He further submitted that revisional court has illegally allowed the revisions and remanded the matter before the Consolidation officer to decide the title objections afresh, which is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that revisional court has illegally allowed the revisions and remanded the matter before the Consolidation officer to decide the title objections afresh, which is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in 1968 and parties are in possession according to the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer by which all the branches were ordered to be recorded over the plot in question, as such further adjudication of the dispute is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by Joint Director of Consolidation are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Kirty Kumar. Nirkhi, and Mr. Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that contesting respondents have not entered into compromise as such the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer has been rightly set aside in revision by the Joint Director of Consolidation and matter has been sent back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection afresh on merit. They further submitted that there was delay in filing the appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, which was explained by the contesting respondents accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revisions setting aside the orders passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer as well as Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer and matter is to be heard afresh by Consolidation Officer so no interference is required against the impugned revisional order. They submitted that in the basic year of the Consolidation operation, Sumer (father of petitioner No.2) was not recorded over the khata in dispute as such the petitioners cannot be given any right and title over the plots of the disputed khatas. He submitted that under the impugned revisional order, matter was remanded back before the Consolidation operation, as such no interference is required. They further submitted that writ petition was dismissed in default accordingly, proceedings has started before the Consolidation Officer as such proper direction be issued for expeditious disposal of the proceeding under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that Assistant Consolidation Officer has decided the matter under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of compromise vide order dated 26.10.1968 and others. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the contesting respondents with delay of about 9 years was dismissed by appellate court, but revisions filed by contesting respondents have been allowed and the matter has been remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the objection afresh on merit. 10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the order dated 27.9.1979 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation will be relevant which is as under: 11. The perusal of the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation fully demonstrate that appeal were filed after 9 years in respect to five khatas only against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer when the village was at the verge of denotifiation. The finding has been also recorded that all the parties have not filed the appeals rather only some of the parties have filed the appeals in respect to the khata in which name of Sumer was ordered to be recorded excluding the six khatas in which contesting respondents were ordered to be recorded along with Sumer. The finding has also been recorded by the appellate court that in pursuance of the order passed by Assistant consolidation Officer, the possession was delivered to the parties and final records were prepared in respect to all the khata. The finding of the fact has also been recorded that record of the proceedings under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been weeded out as such it cannot be said that order under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has not been passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise. 12. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that record of the proceeding before the Assistant Consolidation Officer is not available and contesting respondents are disputing the compromise which alleged to take place before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as such the matter requires adjudication of title dispute on merit, which is arbitrary and illegal exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that record of the proceeding before the Assistant Consolidation Officer is not available and contesting respondents are disputing the compromise which alleged to take place before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as such the matter requires adjudication of title dispute on merit, which is arbitrary and illegal exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.03.1981 allowed the revision and the restoration application filed by petitioners, has been dismissed vide order dated 17.06.1993 in arbitrary manner. 13. It is material that title objection was decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of compromise for recording the name of all the co-shares in respect to all the 11 khata including the khata in which Sumer (father of petitioner No.2) was recorded exclusively but contesting respondent challenged the order passed in respect to five khata in which Sumer was ordered to be recorded along with other branches of the family excluding six khata in which contesting respondents along with others were ordered to be recorded along with Sumer, as such there is no illegallity in the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer passed on the basis of compromise to give right to all the branches of the family as there is no evidence on record that property in question is self acquisition of the other two branches of the family excluding the branch of Sumer. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 25.03.1981 and 17.06.1993 passed by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as order of Assistant Consolidation Officer are hereby affirmed. 15. No order as to costs.