Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Mohan And 7 Others - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Rampur And 3 Others - Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 33432 of 2016
Decided On : 29-07-2016
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Land Dispute - Section 9-A - [Khatas 259, 674, 1048, Village Dadiyal Ehatmali, Tahsil Tanda, District Rampur] - [Section 9-A of the Act] - The court discussed the evidence presented, including the Pariwar Register, Voter Identity Card, and Electoral Roll, to determine the parentage of Bhagwan Das and his claim to co-tenancy of the disputed land. The court also considered the oral evidence of witnesses and the legal admissibility of the evidence presented. The court relied on the evidence of respondent-4, which was deemed more probable, and found that the petitioners failed to disprove the case of Bhagwan Das. The court's decision was based on the admissible evidence and the more probable case presented by respondent-4.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the land of khatas 259, 674, and 1048 in village Dadiyal Ehatmali, tahsil Tanda, district Rampur. Bhagwan Das claimed co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the land, alleging it to be ancestral property. The petitioners contested the claim, stating that Bhagwan Das did not belong to their family and had malafide intentions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by Bhagwan Das, including the Pariwar Register, Voter Identity Card, and Electoral Roll, along with the oral evidence of witnesses, proved his parentage and co-tenancy claim. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to disprove Bhagwan Das's case.
Issues: The key issues included the determination of Bhagwan Das's parentage and co-tenancy claim, the admissibility of evidence, and the burden of proof in the land dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the admissible evidence presented by Bhagwan Das, which was deemed more probable to prove his case. The court also considered the legal admissibility of the evidence and the failure of the petitioners to disprove Bhagwan Das's claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the impugned orders did not suffer from any illegality and had no merit.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
1. Heard Sri K. Ajit, for the petitioners and Sri Shreeprakash Singh, for respondents-4.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 18.02.2010, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 09.11.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.05.2016, 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 of basic consolidation year khatas 259, 674 and 1048, of village Dadiyal Ehatmali, tahsil Tanda, district Rampur. which were recorded in the name of Gyani son of Tika Ram (now represented by the petitioners). Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) filed an objection (registered as Case 48/2009-10) under Section 9-A of the Act, on 01.05.1997 claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by Bhagwan Das that the land in dispute was ancestral property, from the time of common ancestor Tika Ram son Moti, who had two sons Kaluwa and Gyani. Kaluwa died about 40 years ago during life time of his father Tika Ram, leaving behind him, his minor son Bhagwan Das as his only heir. After death of Tika Ram, the name of Gyani alone was recorded, in the revenue record, as at that time Bhagwan Das was minor. Gyani also died and was inherited by his five sons Bhola Ram, Mohan, Kashi Ram, Chandra Pal and Dharam Pal. Bhagwan Das was though out in joint possession of the land in dispute along with Gyani and after his death, along with the petitioners but his name was not recorded in revenue record. The petitioners contested the objection and stated that Bhagwan Das did not belong to his family. Real name of Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) was Bhagwanti, who is son of Natthu son of Kashi. In collusion with his brothers, Hira and Shyam Lal sons of Natthu, Bhagwanti did not claim heirship of his father Natthu. Tika Ram had only one son Gyani. Tika Ram died 40 years ago, since then name of Gyani alone was recorded over the land in dispute. Bhagwan Das never raised any objection in this respect, although he had become major long before. Had he any genuine claim, he could have filed a suit within three years after attaining majority. He malafide filed this objection on false allegations, changing his name as Bhagwan Das son of Kaluwa, during consolidation. The objection was tried and decided by Consolidation Officer, Rampur, who by his order dated 20.12.2001 held that Kaluwa father of Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) was son of Tika Ram. Kaluwa was predeceased to his father, Tika Ram as such after death of Tika Ram, Bhagwan Das inherited 1/2 share in the property in dispute along with Gyani. However in respect of some plots objection of Bhagwan Das was dismissed. The petitioners filed two appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 167/413 and 168/414) from aforesaid order, which were dismissed by order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 01.09.2002.
4. The petitioners filed two revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 85/130 and 168/414) from aforesaid orders. Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) also filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 452/414) from the order of Consolidation Officer. All the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur, who by the order dated 24.05.2008, allowed the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.2001 and 22.12.2001 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 01.09.2002 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer, for deciding the objection afresh after giving opportunity of fresh evidence to the parties. While remanding the case, Deputy Director of Consolidation fixed 16.06.2008 for appearance of the parties before Consolidation Officer.
5. Although Deputy Director of Consolidation fixed 16.06.2008 for appearance of the parties before Consolidation Officer, but after remand the petitioners avoided hearing before Consolidation Officer and did not adduce any evidence. Respondent-4 moved an appl
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
