Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 627
[Citation : RLW 2008(2) RJ 1024 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Ram Avadh & Ors. Vs. Ram Das & Ors (Chaterjee, J.)
HONBLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.;
HONBLE H.S. BEDI, J.
Ram Avadh & Ors.
Versus
Ram Das & Ors
Civil Appeal No. 5570 of 2001, decided on 14th May, 2008
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, M.P.S. Tomar and Ms. Juhi, for Appellants
Manoj Swarup, Ms.Lalita Kohli and Ms. Charu Singhal (for M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co.), for Respondents
Headnote:Tenancy and Land Laws and U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Sec. 20, Expln. III; Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sec. 55(1)(b) — Suit for possession of land — Right to retain possession of land by person recorded as occupant in khasra or khatauni for 1356 Fasli — Entries made in 1356 Fasli in favour of appellants and later his sons, having not been challenged would deemed to be correct and final by virtue of Expln. III to Sec. 20 — Held — They were recorded Bhumidars and co-tenants holders without any challenge , interest of appellants cannot be defeated particularly when they had made due enquiries under Transfer of Property Act, and therefore, they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. (Paras 12 to 14)
Appeal allowed.
dkrdkjh ,oa Hkwfe dkuwu vkSj ;w-ih- tehankjh mUewyu o Hkw lq/kkj vf/kfu;e] 1950] /kkjk 20] Li"Vhdj.k III( lEifÙk gLrkUrj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882] /kkjk 55¼1½¼[k½ & Hkwfe ds dCts gsrq okn & 1356 Qlyh gsrq [kljk ;k [krkSuh esa vf/kHkksxh ds :i esa ntZ O;fä dh Hkwfe dk dCtk cuk;s j[kus dk vf/kdkj & 1356 Qlyh esa vihykFkhZ i{k esa dh xbZ izfof"V;ksa vkSj fQj mlds iq=ksa ds i{k esa dh xbZ izfof"V;ksa dks pqukSfr ugha nsus ds dkj.k /kkjk 20 ds Li"Vhdj.k III ds vk/kkj ij lgh o vfUre ekuk tk;sxk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & mUgsa fcuk fdlh pqukSfr ds Hkwfenkj ,oa lg/k`frnkjh ntZ fd;k x;k vr% vihykFkhZx.k ds fgrksa dh vuns[kh ugha dh tk ldrh foks"kdj] ml le; tc mUgksaus lEifÙk gLrkUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr lE;d~ tk¡p dh Fkh blfy, os fcuk fdlh uksfVl ds ewY;kFkZ ln~Hkkoh Øsrk FksA ¼in la- 12 ls 14½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
.
2. This case has a chequered history, which would be clear from the following facts leading to the filing of this appeal.
The appellants alleged that by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969, they are the vendees of = of the land in Khata No. 98 (in short "the suit property") recorded in the name of the vendors viz., Bhagirati, Putai, Ram Newaj, Matadin, Bachai and Ram Avadh alias Avadhu (in short "Bhagirati & ors.") who are co-tenure holders with the respondents. A notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "the Act") was issued for consolidation operation. The appellants filed objections under Section 9(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer for recording their names in place of Bhagirati & ors. in the revenue records contending that they had obtained the registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969 but by mistake of the Lekhpal, their names could not be recorded in the revenue records. The respondents also filed objections claiming that Bhagirati & ors. or their father Faqir had no share in the suit property and that the suit property belonged to one Sanehi exclusively and therefore, Bhagirati & Ors. did not have any right to sell the same. Accordingly, the respondents strongly contested the case of the appellants who prayed for inclusion of their names in place of Bhagirati & Ors.
3. By an order dated 15th of March 1970, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the appellants and directed that their names be recorded against the suit property. The respondents preferred an appeal under section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but the same was dismissed by the order dated 18th of December, 1970. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Assistant Director - Consolidation, which was allowed by an order dated 16th of August 1971. Against this order passed in revision, the appellants filed a writ petition being WP No. 1797 of 1971 and the same was allowed on 14th of November, 1978 and the matter remanded to the Assistant Director - Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh. The Assistant Director Consolidation allowed the revision this time also by his order dated 20th of February 1981. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court being 2016 of 1981, which, however, was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 22nd of May 1998. It is this decision of the High Court, which is now impugned in this appeal.
4. Before we proceed further, considering the fact that concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer-Consolidation were set aside by the Assistant Director-Consolidation in revision, whose decision was affirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, we deem it expedient to look at the findings of High Court and the Consolidation Officer.
5. Let us first look at the findings of the High Court relying on which the writ petition of the appellants was dismissed. The findings are as under: -
i)At the time of Third settlement, Sanehi was the only recorded tenure-holder of the land in question and Faqir was not recorded as a co- tenure holder.
ii) The name of Faqir was recorded only in the year 1356 Fasli without there being any order showing the title of Faqir or showing the ground on account of which his name was entered as a co-tenure holder of the suit property and therefore, there was no evidence on record to show how his name could be en
