SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(All) 412

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.K. Singh, J.
Lal Dei wife of Sri Maukhu Ram, Smt. Phool Dei wife of Sri Mata Badal
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1830 of 1993
Decided On : 04 March 2005
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1830 Of 1993

Advocates:
G.N.VERMA,

Appeal by any aggrieved person is maintainable if they can prove prejudice and adverse effect from the challenged order.

Headnote:

Fraud - Property Dispute - U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act - Section 171, 229-B - Appeal maintainability - Remand order - Prejudice and adverse effect must be proved for appeal to be entertained

Fact of the Case:

The dispute concerned property previously owned by Devi Prasad, with conflicting claims by Jugri and Sitabi. After discovering fraud, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was remanded for fresh trial by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed a revision against the remand order, leading to the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appeal by any aggrieved person is maintainable, provided they can prove prejudice and adverse effect from the order challenged. The Deputy Director's interference was unjustified, and the writ petition was allowed, quashing the Deputy Director's judgment and directing the Consolidation Officer to proceed as per the appellate authority's directions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appeal filed by the petitioners, who were not party in the proceedings, was maintainable and their claim could be examined in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that appeal by any aggrieved person is maintainable, subject to proving prejudice and adverse effect from the challenged order. Interference by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was unjustified.

Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was quashed. The Consolidation Officer was directed to proceed in accordance with the appellate authority's directions.

S. K. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy director of Consolidation Varanasi dated 24. 12. 92 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ).

( 2 ) FOR disposal of the matter the facts in brief will suffice. Dispute relates to the property which was Bhumidhari of Devi Prasad. Land comprised in Khata No. 23 and 24 situated in village jaisinghpur District Varanasi is in dispute. On the death of Devi Prasad name of Jugri is said to have been mutated as his widow who was the natural heir under Section 171 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. It is said that after the start of the consolidation proceedings except the Khata in disute name of Suit. Jugri continued over land of other Khata and over the land in dispute name of daughter of Devi Prasad viz. Sitabi was got entered by alleged reconciliation/order at the level of assistant Consolidation Officer. It is said that for the first time fraud came to the knowledge when husband of Suit. Jugri Started negotiating the land in dispute and he executed agreement to sale then she filed a suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. It is thereafter the file of the proceedings of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was got traced with great difficulty with the intervention of the authorities on 26. 4. 89. In the meantime Suit. Jugri executed a registered will deed in favour of the petitioner on 11. 4. 1988 and having become natural heir of the deceased on inspection of the file, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer consolidation. Appellate authority by taking note of the fraud and manipulation in the matter, by assigning reasons condoned the delay in filing appeal and remanded the matter back to the consolidation Officer for deciding the ease of the parties on the merits by judgment dated 2. 12. 1989. Against the judgment of the appellate authority opposite party filed revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by judgment dated 24. 12. 92 and thus the same is under challenge by the petitioner.

( 3 ) PARTIES counsel have been heard at length.

( 4 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of consolidation has illegally interfered in the discretion so exercised by the appellate authority by which delay in filing appeal was condoned and matter was remanded back to the Consolidation officer for fresh decision on the merits. It is submitted that it was clear case of fraud as Smt. Jugri was admittedly the widow of Devi Prasad and Sitabi was the daughter of the deceased Devi prasad and therefore entry at the start of the consolidation proceedings in favour of Sitabi on the basis of alleged reconciliation in which admittedly Jugri was not party can only by the result of fraud. Submission is that Jugri Devi is widow of the deceased and she was recorded over land of other Khata and therefore she could not come to know about the entry in favour of Sitabi over khata in question and it: is only when the land was tried to be disposed of a suit was filed and thereafter on the basis of registered will executed by Jugri on her death petitioners filed appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation after condoning the delay and the parties were directed to get their rights decided on the merits. Submission is that on the findings and the reasons so given by the appellate authority the exercise cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in any manner and therefore, interference was not called for. Lastly, it is submitted that the emphasis in the judgment given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for not permitting the petitioner to get trial on the merits is that petitioners were not party in the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and therefore, they have no right to file appeal is totally erroneous and thus judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation be interfered so that justice may be done.

( 5 ) IN support of the submission th

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top