Important Point
High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction to upset the concurrent findings of the three consolidation authorities as to possession of appellant and his status of ‘Sirdar’ in the records of rights.

Headnote:U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-Section 9-Correction of revenue records of rights-Appellant’s objections that disputed land was wrongly entered in the names of respondents when he was in possession-Upheld by consolidation authorities-High Court quashing in writ petition-Whether justified? (No)-Appeal allowed-(U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Sections 209 and 210-Consequences when suit u/s. 209 not filed in time).
Held : We are of the considered view that in a matter like this High Court should not have interfered in the writ jurisdiction to upset the concurrent findings of the authorities under the Consolidation Act holding that it was the appellant who was in possession of the land and the suit under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act not having been filed within the period of limitation appellant had become ‘Sirdar’ thereof in view of Section 210 of that Act. As a matter of fact no decree had been passed as the suit filed under Section 209 abated. Consequences as given in Section 210 follow when there is failure to file suit under Section 209 or to execute decree obtained thereunder. In the present case the authorities under the Consolidation Act came to the conclusion that suit under Section 209 was filed beyond the period of limitation and conferred sirdari rights on the appellant. In Hasan Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 1980), a case also under the Zamindari Abolition Act, in somewhat similar circumstances this Court said that High Court should not have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case High Court had held that the view as to the possession taken by all the three consolidation authorities was manifestly erroneous inasmuch as the possession could have been only permissive and not adverse. This Court said that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not justified in arriving at a contrary conclusion in face of the clear evidence of possession and entries in the records of right sufficiently discussed by the three consolidation authorities. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellant will be entitled to costs throughout. (Paras 13 & 14)

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Appellant is aggrieved by judgment dated December 2, 1980 of the Allahabad High Court rejecting his objections filed by him under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short ‘the Consolidation Act’) which objections had been upheld by the authorities under that Act.

2. Consolidation proceedings were taken up in the village of the appellant under Section 8 and 8-A of the Consolidation Act. Thereafter, notices were issued inviting objections to the records so prepared. The land in question in the records was shown in the names of the respondents to which the appellant filed objections. Under Section 9-A of the Consolidation Act the Consolidation Officer by judgment dated July 12, 1972 upheld the objections of the appellant and names of the respondents were removed from the records and name of the appellant was entered as ‘Sirdar’. Respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who dismissed the same by order dated September 27, 1972. The matter was yet further taken in revision by the respondents and by order dated April 12, 1973 Deputy Director Consolidation dismissed the revision. Respondents thereafter filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court which by impugned judgment dated December 2, 1980 quashed the orders of all the three authorities. The result was that disputed land stood in the names of the respondents in the revenue records under the Consolidation Act.

3. To understand the rival contentions we may briefly refer to the background of the case.

4. The appellant claimed that he was the sole heir of his father Baldev, who was having tenancy rights in the land and after the death of his father appellant inherited the tenancy rights. Appellant said that Shivrati, who claimed to be his brother, was not in fact his brother and that when his father remarried his second wife was already having a son named Shivrati. However, in the revenue record the names of both the appellant and Shivrati were entered which entries according to the appellant were false and were being heirs of Baldev made by Patwari of the village in collusion with Shivrati. Baldev died sometime in 1945, appellant claimed he had been in exclusive possession of the land as owner irrespective of the entries in the revenue records.

5. In 1959 Shivrati filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘Zamindari Abolition Act’). The case set up by the appellant that Shivrati was not his brother was negatived and on February 24, 1961 final decree was passed for partition in favour of Shivrati. An appeal against the judgment and decree thus passed was taken by the appellant but that was dismissed by judgment dated July 17, 1961. The decree for partition became final. It, is, however, admitted case of the parties that this decree was never executed and that appellant always remained in possession of the land since the death of his father which, as stated above, was some time in 1945.

6. During the pendency of the appeal against the decree of partition, Shivrati, it would appear, deposited ten times of the land revenue and on May 1, 1961 obtained ‘Bhumidari sanad’ of the land in his name. Shivrati, thereafter, executed two sale deeds dated May 4, 1961 and June 20, 1961 in favour of the respondents in respect of the land of his share under the decree.

7. In 1962 respondents filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of Additional Munsif claiming Rs. 500/- as damages on the ground that Shivrati had transferred the possession of the land in question to them in 1961 and that the respondents had sown crop of wheat etc. in the land and that the appellant unauthorisedly harvested the crop on March 10, 1962 while the respondents were themselves in the process of harvesting the same. Respondents said that in that process they suffered a loss of Rs. 800/- but they limited their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 840

Important PointHigh Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction to upset the concurrent findings of the three consolidation authorities as to possession of appellant and his status of ‘Sirdar’ in the records of rights.

Cases Referred (1)

Important Point
High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction to upset the concurrent findings of the three consolidation authorities as to possession of appellant and his status of ‘Sirdar’ in the records of rights.