Back
2010 Supreme(All) 2458
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.
Sant Bux Singh -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and another -Respondent
Review Petition No. 264 of 2006
Decided On : 29-07-2010
The duty of the court to examine material and do justice between the parties, and the recognition of apparent errors in the previous judgment.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Consolidation of Holdings - Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act - 2005 (1) SCC 40, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 567 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the relevance of registered and unregistered wills in property disputes. The court also highlighted the duty of the court to examine material and do justice between the parties, emphasizing the denial of justice if the court acts on a computerized system of administration of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Review Petition challenging the dismissal of the Writ Petition, which sought to set aside orders rejecting the petitioner's objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and dismissing the appeal and revision. The dispute arose from conflicting claims of inheritance to land after the death of the recorded tenure-holder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were apparent errors in the previous judgment, including failure to consider crucial details in the will executed by the deceased. The court also noted the duty of the court to examine material and do justice between the parties.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the relevance of registered and unregistered wills, the duty of the court to examine material and do justice between the parties, and the denial of justice if the court acts on a computerized system of administration of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the recognition of apparent errors in the previous judgment and the duty of the court to examine material and do justice between the parties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Review Petition, recalled the impugned judgment, and ordered the Writ Petition to be registered on its original number and listed again for hearing before an appropriate bench.
This Review Petition was filed by the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1082 (Cons.) of 2005 Sant Bux Singh vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation with the prayer to recall the judgement and order passed in the Writ Petition dated 3rd July, 2006 by this Court.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the prayer to set aside the orders dated 12.03.1999 passed by the C.O. (Consolidation Officer) rejecting his Objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), 30.08.2003 passed by the S.O.C. (Settlement Officer Consolidation) dismissing the Appeal and also another order passed by the D.D.C. (Deputy Director of Consolidation) dated 23.07.2005 dismissing the Revision also.
3. Undisputed facts of the case are that one Garibe S/O Jodha was recorded tenure-holder of Plot Nos. 56, 60 and 45 in the basic year in revenue record when the Consolidation operation was started in the area where this land situated. In the record on land of Plot Nos. 56 and 45 name of Garibe was recorded as sole tenure-holder while on the land of Plot No. 60 his name was recorded as co-sharer along with other tenure-holders. Garibe S/O Jodha had died on 05.05.1985. Sant Bux Singh, the petitioner his Nephew i.e. Son of real Brother of Garibe while respondent no. 2, Smt. Bindeshwari is daughter's married daughter of Garibe. Petitioner claimed himself by filing objection under Section 9 of the C.H. Act entitled to be recorded tenure holder on the land of Garibe on the basis that no other male member in the family of Garibe except him surviving. Later on he also claimed by amendment in objection that he is entitled to get recorded his name in the revenue record on the basis of last Will executed by Garibe on 28.04.1985. This prayer of amendment in Objection was earlier rejected by the C.O. and also by the S.O.C. in Appeal but later on in Revision, D.D.C. had allowed it and permitted to amend his Objections as prayed.
4. On the other hand, respondent no. 2 Smt. Bindeshwari also claimed herself heir of Garibe on the basis of another Will registered on 17/18.05.1982 and executed by Garibe and filed Objection to record her name on the land in dispute. Both the parties filed documents and led oral evidence in support of their respective cases before the C.O. After going through evidence on record C.O. rejected the claim of Sant Bux Singh and ordered to enter the name of Smt. Bindeshwari Devi in place of Garibe in record on the basis of Will in her favour. Appeal filed before the S.O.C. and Revision filed before the D.D.C. by petitioner both were also dismissed. Writ Petition No. 1082(Cons.) of 2005 was filed challenging the aforesaid three orders but the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the instant Review Petition has been filed by Sant Bux Singh.
5. Undisputedly, this Review Petition was filed well within time. For disposal of the Review Petition Notice was served on the counsel for the respondent No. 2, Shri Pankaj Gupta through counsel for petitioner applicant who appeared on the date fixed for hearing. He has not pressed for time to file objections in the review case. File of the writ petition already available. On the request of parties' counsel their arguments as well as of learned Standing Counsel were heard on merit and record was perused.
6. It was argued on behalf of the review petitioner that this Court while dismissing the writ petition not considered the points raised on behalf of the petitioner and decided the matter on the points which were not raised from the petitioner's side. It was further argued that Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner vide Application No. 725(W) of 2006 and documents annexed with it, although the same was replied on behalf of the respondent no. 2 through counter affidavit, were not taken into consideration by this Court. In the Supplementary Affidavit it was pointed that Consolidation Officer referring t
