Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Jhinkan (Deceased) and Others -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others -Respondent
Writ-B No. 8023 of 2014
Decided On : 05-03-2014
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Dispute over land ownership - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Section 12 - The court discussed the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer, and Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The judgment highlighted the dispute over the land of khata 180 of village Deipaar, tappa Bhanpur, pargana Rasoolpur, tehsil Dumariyaganj, district Siddharthnagar. It also emphasized the alleged family settlement, sale deeds, mutation proceedings, and the jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar in deciding the shares of co-sharers. The court's decision was influenced by the findings related to the registration of orders, forged mutations, and the validity of the compromise, sale deeds, and jurisdictional issues.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the ownership of land in village Deipaar, with conflicting claims from Jhinkan and Ram Prasad. The court analyzed the alleged family settlement, sale deeds, mutation proceedings, and jurisdictional issues. The court found that the alleged family settlement was not proved, the mutation of orders was forged, and the jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar in deciding the shares of co-sharers was invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the alleged family settlement was not proved, the mutation of orders was forged, and the jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar in deciding the shares of co-sharers was invalid.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership, validity of alleged family settlement, authenticity of mutation of orders, jurisdictional issues related to the Naib Tehsildar
Ratio Decidendi: The alleged family settlement was not proved, the mutation of orders was forged, and the jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar in deciding the shares of co-sharers was invalid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to the lack of proof for the alleged family settlement, the forged mutation of orders, and the invalid jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar.
Heard Sri Mohd. Mustafa Khan, counsel for the petitioners.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.09.2002, Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 15.03.2007 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 09.12.2013 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 of khata 180 of village Deipaar, tappa Bhanpur, pargana Rasoolpur, tehsil Dumariyaganj, district Siddharthnagar. In basic consolidation record names of Ram Prasad (respondent-5) and Jhinkan (the petitioner) were recorded over the land in dispute. At the time of partal, Jhinkan raised a dispute, claiming 3/4 share in the land in dispute. It is alleged that before the Consolidation Officer Jhinkan and Ram Prasad entered into compromise and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 24.12.1987 held the share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and share of Ram Prasad as 1/4 in the land in dispute.
4. In the meantime, Ram Prasad executed a sale deed dated 22.03.1985, in respect of his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Sudhara (respondent-4). Smt. Sudhara filed an application (registered as Case No. 174) under Section 12 of the Act for mutating her name over the land in dispute. Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 24.09.2002 directed for recording the name of Smt. Sudhara over 1/2 share of the land in dispute.
5. Smt. Sudhara filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 405) from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1987. Jhinkan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 713) from the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.09.2002. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioners stated that Jhinkan (deceased petitioner) and Mangarey were real brothers. In family settlement between two brothers, Jhinkan was given 3/4 share and Mangarey was given 1/4 share. On the basis of family settlement, Naib Tahsildar by order dated 18.01.1979 recorded share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and share of Mangarey as 1/4. Before Consolidation Officer Ram Prasad also entered in to compromise with Jhinkan and admitted his 1/4. As such Consolidation Officer by order dated 24.12.1987 held the share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and share of Ram Prasad as 1/4 in the land in dispute.
6. Smt. Sudhara took the plea that the land in dispute was ancestral property of Jhinkan and Mangarey, who were real brothers and had equal share in it. Mangarey executed a sale deed dated 14.02.1978 in respect of 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Ram Prasad, whose name was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed. Ram Prasad executed a sale deed dated 22.03.1985, in respect of his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Sudhara (respondent-4) and her name was mutated by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.09.2002 on the basis of compromise. Ram Prasad (respondent-5) never filed any compromise before Consolidation Officer. The alleged compromise was not signed by Ram Prasad nor it was verified by Consolidation Officer. The order dated 24.12.1987 was secured by committing fraud on the Court.
7. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment dated 15.03.2007 held that the case of relating to the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1987 was not registered in 'goswara' register. Same khatauni filed by Smt. Sudhara of khata 180 of 1389 F- 1394 F does not contained any mutation of the order dated 24.12.1987 but the khatauni of 1389 F- 1394 F of khata 180 filed by Jhinkan contained endorsement of the order dated 24.12.1987 which shows that endorsement of the order is a forgery. Naib Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide the shares of the co-sharers in the land in dispute. Mangarey executed a sale deed dated 14.02.1978 in respect of 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Ram Prasad, whose name
AI
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
