Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Sita Ram(Dead) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Singh(Dead) Through Lrs & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 8179 of 2016 With Civil Appeal No(S). 8181 of 2016
Decided On : 17-09-2019
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 – Challenge registered deed of exchange – Deed of exchange in instant case was executed between parties on 2nd March, 1974 and period of limitation for filing of suit had expired much before U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 amended w.e.f. 3rd June, 1981 came into force – No suit was filed either by Gaon Sabha or any land holder for ejectment as envisaged under Section 167(1) of Act, 1950 – Deed of exchange executed on 2nd March, 1974 even if considered to be void, taking note of post amended provisions of Act, 1950, it will still confine to deed of exchange dated 2nd March, 1974 which was obtained without taking permission from Assistant Collector as envisaged under Section 161 of the Act and at the best rights to parties on execution of exchange deed could not be given effect to and it remain inter se between parties to exchange at the same time, so far as subject plot which was once transferred by original tenure holders who are throughout contesting the matter, by a registered sale deed which has been held to be genuine and valid, will not be under any legal impediment or having any effect on rights of parties and said transaction was not subject to compliance of Section 161 of Act, 1950 – There is no such provision that if holder has not taken steps for claiming Bhumidari rights under Act, 1953 that will take away or divest from legal rights conferred to party in whose favour registered sale deed has been executed under mandate of law – Conclusions of the High Court in its judgment impugned are unassailable and does not call for interference – Appeals dismissed. [Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 166 read with Section 167; Rule 338 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952] (Paras 24 to 28)
Facts of the Case:
Present appeals arise from the judgment dated 5th July, 2007 passed by High Court of Allahabad in setting at naught inter se rights of the litigating parties initiated under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 arising from registered deed of exchange dated 2nd March, 1974.
Findings of the Court:
So far as non-compliance of mandatory requirement as envisaged under Section 161 of Act, 1950 while executing exchange deed dated 2nd March, 1974 is concerned, parties have to bear its consequences of void transaction as provided under Section 166 read with Section 167 of Act, 1950 but that will not give any preference to appellants for restoration of their rights and to nullify registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973 executed after taking due consideration in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 5th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in setting at naught the inter se rights of the litigating parties initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter being referred to as the “Act, 1950”) arising from the registered deed of exchange dated 2nd March, 1974.
2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that Smt. Chando and Sita Ram (since deceased) who were tenure holders of Plot No. 2902 ad-measuring 0.34 decimals situated in Village Mathura Bangar, Tehsil & District Mathura, U.P. sold the subject plot on transfer of consideration to late N.D. Chaudhary(father of respondent nos. 10 & 11) vide registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973. Late Kesho Ram (father/grandfather of respondent nos. 1 to 8), who was tenure holder of plot nos. 2863 and 2888, with consent, exchanged his plots with plot no. 2902 owned by late N.D. Chaudhary by a registered deed of exchange dated 2nd March, 1974. As a result of the deed of exchange, plot no. 2902 ad-measuring 0.34 decimals was transferred in favour of late Kesho Ram and plot nos. 2863 and 2888 in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary.
3. That at the time of field partal (chakbandi) in the village for correction of revenue records conducted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) late Kesho Ram(father/grandfather of respondent nos. 1 to 8) filed application under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1953”) and prayed that his name be recorded on Plot No. 2902 by virtue of the exchange deed executed between him and late N.D. Chaudhary dated 2nd March, 1974.
4. It may be noticed that late N.D. Chaudhary who had exchanged his Plot No. 2902 with Plot Nos. 2863 and 2888 from late Kesho Ram also filed application in the consolidation proceedings and supported the case of late Kesho Ram who was the applicant in the proceedings for opening of mutation in his name in the revenue records.
5. At this stage Smt. Chando and Sita Ram who were the original tenure holders of Plot No. 2902 who had sold it to late N.D. Chaudhary, by a registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973, raised an objection regarding validity of the registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973. The Consolidation Officer, after appraisal of the material on record, held that the sale deed dated 24th January, 1973 executed by Smt. Chando and Sita Ram in reference to plot no. 2902 in favour of late N.D. Chaudhary was genuine and valid and was jointly executed by Smt. Chando and Sita Ram and in regard to the exchange of plots, the Consolidation Officer held that the exchange was permissible only with permission of the Assistant Collector in terms of Section 161 of the Act, 1950 which, in the instance case, was not obtained by the parties. In the absence of permission which is prerequisite, he is not entitled to be recorded as Bhumidar under the consolidation proceedings. When the matter travelled in appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1953, it was observed that the registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1973 was not proved based on appreciation of evidence and further held that the deed of exchange dated 2nd March, 1974 was void for want of permission from the competent authority provided under Section 161 of the Act, 1950 and the appeal was consequently dismissed on 18th January, 1982.
6. The matter further travelled before the State Government in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of Act, 1953 filed at the instance of late N.D. Chaudhary and late Kesho Ram before Deputy Director, Consolidation, Mathura, both the revision petitions came to be dismissed although authority did not record any finding regarding validity of the sale deed but from the order, it reveals that the authority proceeded on the premise that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
