Back
2016 Supreme(All) 1257
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
RATAN SINGH .....Petitioner
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SHAHJAHANPUR AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 788, 9827, 35786, 35831, 35836 of 2006 and 14625 of 1983, decided on 19th October, 2016)
Counsel :
Suresh Chandra Varma, S.K. Singh, B.M. Singh, S.C., R.K. Pandey, B.B. Jauhari, S.K. Tripathi for the Petitioner; C.S.C., C.B. Yadav, B.K. Mishra, Vijendra Singh for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Abatement—Question of—Death of one of respondents—Substituted by his heirs alongwith his brother—Now one of these heir died during pendency of writ petition—As another heir of original deceased was already on record and represents estate of original deceased—Writ petition will not abate. [Paras 6 and 7]
(B) U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972—Sections 5 and 9—Eviction—Agricultural land—Appeal under Section 9—Decided—But when matter came to High Court in writ petition—High Court too decided it—However in further appeal before Division Bench, it found that entire matter was of agricultural land, as such, it remanded matter for decision in accordance with revenue law—But after remand also, several illegalities were committed by Courts below—Consequently, matter again remanded for decision afresh. [Paras 49 to 51]
(C) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 8, 18 and 189—U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953—Sections 9A, 11 and 48—Forest Act, 1927—Sections 3, 4, 6 and 20—Agra Tenancy Act, 1926—Section 29—U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939—Sections 3(10) and 29—Forest land given on lease to claimants prior to abolition of Zamindari—They claimed Bhumidhari rights on basis of their cultivatory occupation by filing objection under Section 9-A before C.O.—Matter went in appeal and thereafter in revision—Finally it come before High Court in writ petition—High Court remanded matter for decision afresh but authorities below decided it without complying with order of remand—As such, in this writ petition, High Court again remanded it to D.D.C. for decision afresh. [Paras 40, 41, 43, 44, 46 to 48 and 52 to 58]
Result; Petitions Decided Accordingly.
Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—I have heard Shri N.B. Nigam and Shri R.K. Pandey for the petitioners in the two writ petitions filed by private parties and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents therein.
2. In the remaining writ petitions, filed by the State, I have heard Shri Sanjay Goswami for the petitioner Shri N.B. Nigam and Shri R.K. Pandey have been heard in opposition in these writ petitions filed by the State as also Shri B.B. Jauhari for the private respondents in writ petition No. 35831 of 2006, filed by the State.
3. The writs filed by the private respondents as also the writs filed by the State except writ petition No. 14625 of 1983 are all directed against the same impugned order. They have therefore been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
4. Writ petition No. 14625 of 1983 arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. However, it pertains to the land, which is subject-matter of the other writ petitions. This writ petition had earlier been allowed by this Court. However, a special leave petition was filed by the State of U.P., which after conversion into a civil appeal, was allowed and remanded back for reconsideration alongwith the other five writ petitions, vide order dated 11.1.2016. This writ petition shall be dealt with separately at the appropriate place in this judgment.
5. The five writ petitions arise out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and are directed against the orders passed in these proceedings.
6. It has been submitted that respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 35831 of 2006 filed by the State has died and, therefore, the writ petition has abated. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the respondent No. 3, Hardwari (since deceased) had been substituted alongwith his brother on the death of their father.
7. In my considered opinion, there is no abatement on the death of an heir, especially when another heir is already on record and he represents the estate of the original party.
8. The oral prayer for abatement of writ petition No. 35831 of 2006, is hereby refused.
9. The facts briefly stated are that plot No. 248 area 100 acres is in dispute in these writ petitions. It is the case of the private parties that portions of this plot were leased out to them, by the erstwhile Zamindar, through his karinda.
10. The petitioners in writ petition No. 788 of 2006 claim on the basis of three lease deeds. The first lease deed dated 1.6.1949 was for an area of 56.25 acres, the second lease dated 15.6.1949 was for an area of 43.75 and the third lease deed dated 25.6.1949 was for an area of 7 acres.
11. The other private respondents claim on the basis of other separate lease deeds of different areas of plot No. 248.
12. The private parties claimed title on account of their possession on the date of abolition of Zamindari, pursuant to the lease deeds executed in their favour by the Zamindar through his karinda.
13. In the basic year record, the disputed land was recorded as reserved forest. The objections filed by the private parties were dismissed on the ground that the land was a reserved forest and, therefore, the consolidation Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter.
14. The orders passed by the consolidation Courts were challenged by means of writ petition No. 1127 of 1973. This writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 31.8.1979 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for to a fresh consideration, in the light of the observations made in the judgment itself. A copy of this judgment, which is available on record, reveals that the issue to be considered by the Consolidation Officer was as to whether the land in dispute, was forest land and the property of the Government on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act and whether the Government had proprietory rights in this land. It was further observed th
