Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1720 (ALL)

Imambaqs v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

2024-07-23

DINESH PATHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Dinesh Pathak, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. The petitioner has shown his grievance against the remand order dated 28.2.2024, whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC') has relegated the parties before the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'CO') Mahoba to get the matter decided afresh qua rights and title of the parties over the property in question. 3. Having considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel and perusal of the record, it is manifested that the instant writ petition is arising out of proceedings under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act'). Undisputedly, the property in question belongs to Bhagwan Das who had two sons, namely, Govind Das and Hardayal. They have executed registered sale deeds dated dated 3.11.1993 and 6.11.1993 in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the said sale deeds, present petitioner has moved an application under Section 12 of UPCH Act. During pendency of the proceedings, the contesting respondents have contested the case claiming right and title over the property in question on the basis of an unregistered will deed dated 14.12.1987 said to have been executed by Bhagwan Das in their favour. After a chequered history of litigation, ultimately the CO, vide order dated 30.9.2021, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. On appeal being filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC') has allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by the CO vide its order dated 12.1.2022. The DDC, on revision being filed on behalf of the contesting respondent, has allowed the revision and relegated the parties before the CO to get the matter decided afresh. While remanding the matter, the DDC has given categorical finding that the marginal witness of the Will deed have not been cross-examined, therefore, their statements are not admissible in evidence. In this backdrop of the facts, the genuineness and validity of the alleged Will deed has been doubted. Intending to obtain a clear observation/finding in this regard, the DDC has remitted the matter before the CO. Nothing has been decided finally with respect to the right and title of the parties over the property in question. In this backdrop of the facts, the genuineness and validity of the alleged Will deed has been doubted. Intending to obtain a clear observation/finding in this regard, the DDC has remitted the matter before the CO. Nothing has been decided finally with respect to the right and title of the parties over the property in question. Both the parties still have an opportunity to contest the matter before the CO and get their right, title and interest adjudicated upon. This court is not expected to conduct a mini trial to examine the genuineness and validity of the alleged Will deed dated 14.12.1987, said to have been executed by Bhagwan Das in favour of his grandsons (contesting private respondents herein) 4. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the remand order passed by the DDC. There is no illegality, perversity, ambiguity or infirmity in the order under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing a miscarriage of justice to him owning to the order under challenge. 5. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no orders as to the costs. 6. Before parting with the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for interim protection during pendency of the objection/case before the CO, inasmuch as the petitioner is in possession over the property in question on the basis of registered sale deed said to have been executed by Govind Das and Hardayal in their favour. It is further urged for expeditious disposal of the said objection/case. 7. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the old matter wherein parties are under litigation since 1994, it would be appropriate to issue a direction that the CO, before whom proceeding under Section 12 of UPCH Act is pending consideration in pursuance of the remand order dated 28.2.2024 passed by the DDC, shall make an endeavor to decide the objection/case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8. 8. It is expected that it should be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 9. Till the decision on the said objection, as mentioned above, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession over the property in question.