Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 131 (ALL)

Ram Naresh v. D. D. C. Sultanpur

2025-01-24

JASPREET SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Ram Kushal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the private-respondents as well as Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the State. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 16.05.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 02.01.1988 was affirmed, as a consequence, the claim of the petitioners claiming exclusive rights was rejected and the claim of the private-respondents claiming co-tenancy was upheld. 3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute relates to Khata No.202, situated in Village Vaidaha, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil and District Sultanpur, which stood recorded in the name of Ram Naresh, the original petitioner in the base year khatauni. Upon the commencement of consolidation operations in the village in question, the objections under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 were filed by the private-respondents claiming co-tenancy rights in respect of the property in question which was claimed by them to be ancestral property. 4. This was disputed by the petitioner, who set up a case that the said property was exclusively settled with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Ram Charan prior to abolition of Zamindari by the then Zamindar and as such the same could not be treated as ancestral property as alleged by the private-respondents. The aforesaid claim as raised by the petitioner was upheld by the Consolidation Officer in its order dated 04.04.1986. However, the lower appellate Court in an appeal filed by the private-respondents allowed the appeal and granted co-tenancy rights in Khata No.202. This order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 02.01.1988 was challenged in revision which was also dismissed. 5. It is further urged that the name of Ram Charan was recorded since the time of third settlement and the name of Ram Naresh was reflected in the khatauni of the year 1356 and 1362 fasli year. Accordingly, these documents were misconstrued and inappropriately considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. Dr. Accordingly, these documents were misconstrued and inappropriately considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the private-respondents submitted that the property including the Khata No.202 was the ancestral property coming from the common ancestor Binda. 7. It is urged that upon the death of Binda, he was survived by his two sons namely Ram Charan and Shiv Charan. The petitioners are claiming exclusive rights in Khata No.202 on the ground that it belonged to Ram Naresh exclusively whereas the case of the private-respondents is that Ram Charan was having two sons namely Putai and Bipat and the private- respondents are the successors of Bipat whereas the petitioners are the successors of Putai. 8. It is urged that two other Gatas namely Gata No.330 and 331 were recorded as ancestral and co-tenancy right was granted to the private- respondents. However, only in respect of Khata No.202, the rights of the private-respondents were refused by the Consolidation Officer and both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly assessed the evidence and recorded a finding that the petitioners could not establish their exclusive rights of their predecessor Ram Charan and on the contrary there was ample evidence to indicate that the disputed khata which was in the name of Ram Charan wherein the petitioners have also got a right being ancestral property. Hence, the two orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation do not require any interference and the writ petition being concluded with findings of fact deserves to be dismissed. 9. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 10. At the outset, from a perusal of the record, it appears that the original petitioner namely Ram Naresh expired and his legal heirs are already on record. 11. Apparently, the dispute is confined only to Khata No.202 wherein the petitioners, who are successors of Putai son of Ram Charan, claiming exclusive rights. 10. At the outset, from a perusal of the record, it appears that the original petitioner namely Ram Naresh expired and his legal heirs are already on record. 11. Apparently, the dispute is confined only to Khata No.202 wherein the petitioners, who are successors of Putai son of Ram Charan, claiming exclusive rights. The petitioners claimed that it was recorded by the Consolidation Officer that the name of Ram Charan, the predecessor of both the petitioners and the private-respondents was recorded at the time of third settlement which continued and it was also reflected in the khatauni of 1356 and 1366 fasli years and as such it was also found recorded in the base year khatauni. Consequently, any claim made by the private-respondents claiming co-tenancy was bad. 12. In case, if the aforesaid submission is tested in light of the material on record, this Court finds that apart from the submissions made to the effect that Ram Charan was recorded as the exclusive owner since the third settlement and his name was reflected in the 1356 and 1362 fasli years, but there is no evidence or material to indicate as to how the land was acquired by Ram Charan in the first place. 13. It is urged that the land was settled with Ram Charan by the erstwhile Zamindar, but there is no document to indicate as to how and when the said land was settled with Ram Charan. It is to be seen necessarily that when the third settlement is said to have been taken place at that relevant point of time, the Oudh Rent Act, 1886 was in operation and until and unless there was evidence and an instrument till then, it cannot create a right in favour of Ram Naresh merely on the basis of random entry in revenue records. 14. Another important fact which is to be seen is that the name of Ram Charan is found only in random khataunis (record of rights). 14. Another important fact which is to be seen is that the name of Ram Charan is found only in random khataunis (record of rights). If it is to be considered that Ram Naresh was the exclusive tenure holder of Khata No.202 then it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have proved by cogent evidence, the source of acquisition of exclusive right by Ram Charan coupled with the fact that the said entry in the name of Ram Charan since the third settlement continued right up till the date of vesting and even thereafter and there is complete continuity of the aforesaid fact reflecting the name of Ram Charan being recorded throughout and then upon his death in favour of his son Putai and thereafter in favour of Ram Charan. 15. In absence of such cogent evidence, it cannot be presumed on the asking of the petitioners to treat the said property as exclusive of Ram Charan. It would have been a different situation if the name of Ram Charan was recorded in 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli even then there could have been some presumption of course subject to evidence to rule in favour of the petitioners. However, even the same is missing as there are two documents only i.e. the khatauni of 1356 fasli which relates to the year 1949 and khatauni of 1362 which relates to the year 1955. Mere random entries without establishing as to how the land was exclusively acquired by Ram Charan will not come to the aid of the petitioners to treat the said property as exclusive whereas on the other hand there is no dispute regarding the family tree and that the private-respondents, in this context, also belong to the same family. 16. So far as the other plots No.330 and 331 are concerned, the same have been held to be the ancestral property and both the petitioners as well as the private-respondents are having co-tenancy rights and in this way both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly concluded that even Khata No.202 would be ancestral property and the right of co-tenancy has been granted to the private-respondents. Merely because in respect of Khata No.202, the name of Ram Naresh alone has been recorded in the base year will not give rise to any inference that it was the exclusive property of Ram Naresh. Merely because in respect of Khata No.202, the name of Ram Naresh alone has been recorded in the base year will not give rise to any inference that it was the exclusive property of Ram Naresh. Moreover, the person who alleges a fact, it is the duty of the said person to prove it in accordance with law. However, the same has not been done and this has been recorded both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 17. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error, which may persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned orders. Since, no other points have been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties., consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.