Back
2014 Supreme(All) 533
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Anirudh Singh and Another -Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. and Others -Respondent
Writ-B No.4592of2014
Decided On : 07-03-2014
Counsel for the Petitioners: Shrinath Dwivedi.
Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., N.L. Srivastava and Sant Ram Sharma.
The judgment underscores the importance of proving the authenticity of wills and the admissibility of documentary evidence. It also highlights the wide powers of consolidation authorities to reassess evidence and decide issues of fact to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 171, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c), Section 68, Section 50, Section 76, Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved land recorded in different khatas of a village. The petitioners and respondents claimed ownership based on inheritance and mutation orders. The consolidation authorities initially ruled in favor of the respondents, leading to a series of appeals and revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the will presented by the petitioners was not proven to be genuine, and the respondents were able to establish their lineage and inheritance through oral and documentary evidence. The court also dismissed the petitioners' claims regarding the timing and admissibility of additional evidence.
Issues: Ownership of disputed land, validity of presented will, admissibility of additional evidence, jurisdiction of consolidation authorities
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper proof of wills and the admissibility of documentary evidence. It also upheld the wide powers of the consolidation authorities to reassess evidence and decide issues of fact to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the consolidation authorities.
Heard Sri Shrinath Dwivedi, for the petitioner and Sri N.L. Srivastava for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 01.05.2006, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 05.10.2006 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.12.2013 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
3. The dispute relates to the land recorded in khatas 37, 38, 39, 40 and 132 of village Lamakol, pargana Reipura, tahsil Mau, district Chitrakoot. Basic consolidation year entries as well as objections filed by the parties are as follows:
(a) In basic consolidation year, khata 37 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners). At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/2 each. Another dispute was noted that names of Yadunath and Anirudh were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (respondents-4 to 8) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/5 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Share of Hanuman alias Hinwat is 1/2 and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992.
(b) In basic consolidation year, khata 38 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga. At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, the shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/4 each and share of Hinwat as 1/2. Another dispute was noted that names of Yadunath and Anirudh were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute, while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/5 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Share of Hanuman alias Hinwat is 1/2 and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992.
(c) In basic consolidation year, khata 39 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga, Smt. Dhokhiya widow of Bhairav Prasad and Lallu Prasad son of Prayag Lal. At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/6 each and share of Hinwat
