Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2887
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Rupai and Others -Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. and Others -Respondent
C.M.W.P No. 15149 of 1985
Decided On : 20-12-2013
For the Petitioner:- R.B. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent:- S.C., A.K. Pandey, S.C. Dobhall, Shashi Ranjan Srivastav
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to re-evaluate evidence and modify basic year entries if found to be wrongly derived at. The admissibility of statements of family members under Section 50 of the Evidence Act to prove relationship and the relevance of criminal court orders and Finger Print Expert reports in establishing identity were also emphasized.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Dispute over land ownership - Sections 9-A(2), 48 - The court discussed the scope of jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act to reappraise the oral and documentary evidence and record independent findings. It cited various judgments to establish the wide powers of the Deputy Director to re-evaluate evidence and modify basic year entries if found to be wrongly derived at. The court also emphasized the admissibility of statements of family members under Section 50 of the Evidence Act to prove relationship and the relevance of criminal court orders and Finger Print Expert reports in establishing identity.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a claim of co-tenancy of land under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioner claimed 1/2 share in the land, while the respondents contested the claim, alleging that the petitioner was not the son of the original landowner. The case involved conflicting evidence from various documents and witnesses regarding the petitioner's parentage and inheritance of the disputed land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had the jurisdiction to re-evaluate evidence and record independent findings under Section 48 of the Act. It held that the evidence of family members was admissible to prove relationship, and the orders of the criminal court and Finger Print Expert reports were relevant in establishing identity. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to re-evaluate evidence, the admissibility of family members' statements, and the relevance of criminal court orders and Finger Print Expert reports in establishing identity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the wide powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to re-evaluate evidence and modify basic year entries if found to be wrongly derived at. It emphasized the admissibility of statements of family members under Section 50 of the Evidence Act to prove relationship and the relevance of criminal court orders and Finger Print Expert reports in establishing identity.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
1.Heard Sri R.B. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, for respondents-3 to 5.
2.The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 09.09.1985, passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3.The dispute relates to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khatas 36 and 78 of village Pokhar Bhinda tappa Gaura, pargana Silhat, district Deoria. Rupai (petitioner-1) (hereinafter after referred to as the petitioner) filed objections (registered as Case Nos. 1282 and 1283) under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the land in dispute. The petitioner took the case that the land in dispute belonged to Ram Lal, who left behind him his son Rupai and grand sons Abhiraj, Patiraj and Atiraj sons of Swami Nath (respondents-3 to 5) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). The petitioner has 1/2 share in the disputed land according to the pedigree. The respondents contested the case on the ground that Rupai was not the son of Ram Lal. Rupai was born to Smt. Mudli with Jagesar of village Karaundi, tappa Kachuar, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria. Jagesar divorced Smt. Mudli, then she remarried to Ram Lal. At the time of remarriage of Smt. Mudli to Ram Lal, Rupai came with Smt. Mudli to the house of Ram Lal. The name of Rupai was Rekha at village Karaundi, tappa Kachuar, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria. After becoming major Rupai went to village Karaundi, tappa Kachuar, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria and began to live with his father Jagesar and after death of Jagesar, inherited his properties and his name was mutated in the revenue record.
4.The case was tried by Consolidation Officer (respondent-2). Apart from documentary evidence, the petitioner examined Rupai as PW-1 and the respondents examined Smt. Tetri daughter of Ram Lal as DW-1, Narain son of Ram Swarup as DW-2 and Abhiraj as DW-3. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.06.1975, held that Rupai filed un-certified copies of the Voter List and Kutumb Register. Age of Rupai has been mentioned as 45 years in Voter List and 63 years in Kutumb Register. The name of Rupai has been recorded in the khatauni 1376 F-1378 F, by the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 24.12.1970 passed in Case No. 940. The respondents filed documents showing that name of Rekha was mutated as son of Jagesar of village Karaundi, tappa Kachuar, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria, by order dated 13.12.1973. In the Complaint Case No. 202 of 1972, Munsif Magistrate Deoria found that Rupai of village Pokhar Bhinda and Rekha of village Karaundi, tappa Kachuar, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria were one and same person, which was proved from Finger Print Expert report filed in the complaint case. From the oral evidence of Smt. Tetri and Narain it was proved that Rupai was born to Smt. Mudli with the bedlock of Jagesar of village Karaundi, tappa Kachuar, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria and after divorce, when Smt. Mudli remarried to Ram Lal, Rupai came with her and was brought up by Smt. Mudli and Ram Lal. After becoming major, Rupai went to village Karaundi, tappa Kachuar, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria, where he inherited the properties of Jagesar in the name of Rekha, Rekha and Rupai was one and same person. On these findings, Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.06.1975, directed for deleting the name of Rupai, from the khatas in dispute and the names of the respondents alone were recorded.
5.Rupai filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 596/1083) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Deoria, who by order dated 19.12.1975, held that from Voter List, Kutumb Register and Riksha Driving License issued by Municipality Deoria, it was proved that Rupai was son of Ram Lal. The ord
