Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2575
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Mahendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. - Respondent
Writ-B No. 9093 of 2015
Decided On : 16-02-2015
For the Appellant : Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot
For the Respondents: C.S.C. and Anuj Kumar
The main legal point established is the requirement for genuine evidence and non-fabricated documents in land dispute cases under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Section 9, Section 20, Section 52
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a land dispute related to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioner claimed ancestral possession of the land, while the respondent contested the genuineness of the objection and the documents presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objection and judgment were written in the same handwriting, indicating fabrication of documents. It concluded that there was no genuine case for trial and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the genuineness of the objection and documents, the possession of the land, and the legality of the Deputy Director of Consolidation's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of fabricated documents and lack of genuine case for trial, as well as contradictory statements and lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.4.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.1.2015, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. The dispute relates to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 510 [consisting plots 34 (area 0.84 acre), 389 (area 0.16 acre) and 776 (area 1.60 acre)] of village Kashipura, tahsil Kulpahar, district Mahoba, which was recorded in the name of Chinuwa (respondent-3). Notification under section 9 of the Act for the village was issued on 15.9.1981, section 20 was issued on 20.1.1983. Thereafter Provisional Consolidation Scheme was confirmed and possession over confirmed chaks were delivered up to 31.8.1985. As no objection was filed up to that time as such chak was carved out in the name of Chinuwa.
3. It is alleged that Mahendra Singh (the petitioner) filed a time barred objection, claiming the land in dispute on the basis of his continuous possession since before date of vesting, along with delay condonation application. Notice issued by Consolidation Officer to Chinuwa was returned unserved with report that Chinuwa had gone out of village. Thereafter, notices were published in newspaper 'Dainik Karmyug Prakash' and Consolidation Officer, on its basis by order dated 27.4.1986 proceeded ex-parte against respondent-3 and recorded statement of Mahendra Singh and his witness Nathuwa on 2.5.1986 and by order dated 20.11.1986 allowed the objection and directed for recording the petitioner's name over new plots 2-Ra (area 0.18 acre), 211 (area 0.22 acre), 212 (area 0.32 acre), 687 (area 1.32 acre), 1261 (area 0.59 acre) and 1265 (area 0.23 acre).
4. Chinuwa filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 80 of 2012) from the aforesaid order along with delay condonation application on 11.1.2012. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 30.4.2012 held that the petitioner did not raise any dispute during partal claiming his right over the land in dispute nor filed any objection under section 9 within time. The objection of the petitioner, report of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.1.1986, notice issued in the case and the order dated 20.11.1986 were in the handwriting of one and the same person. Although in the judgment, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had filed documentary evidence to prove his possession but there was no documentary evidence on record. For these reasons it was held that entire record was fabricated and delay in filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal was allowed. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.11.1986 was set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after giving opportunity of evidence/hearing to the parties.
5. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 285/122) and respbndent-3 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 265/189) along with delay condonation application against the aforesaid order. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 19.1.2015, held that the objection of the petitioner, report of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.1.1986, notice issued in the case and the order dated 20.11.1986 were in the handwriting of one and the same person. Thus there was no genuine objection on record. Entire papers were fabricated at some time after finalization of Provisional Consolidation Scheme. On the findings that entire records were fabricated, the case was not required to be remanded for trial as there was no genuine case at all. On these findings he allowed the revision of respondent-3 and dismissed the revision of the petitioner and directed to Settlement Officer Consolidation to make an inquiry and lodge a F.I.R. against the person found guilty fo
