Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3444
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Om Pal - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Writ - B No. - 40804 of 2015
Decided On : 17-08-2015
For the Petitioner: Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, Smt. Archana Tyagi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 131 of U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Rules, 1952 in the partition process, emphasizing the principles of proportionate valuation, compact allocation, and non-splitting of existing fields, and rejecting the sole reliance on previous possession for partition.
Headnote:
Zamindari Abolition - Partition Suit - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Rule 131 of U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Rules, 1952 - Plots 24, 30, 150 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Rule 131 of U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Rules, 1952 in making partition of holdings, principles to be observed in making partition, and the valuation and allocation of land to co-sharers. The court emphasized the principles of proportionate valuation, compact allocation, and non-splitting of existing fields as provided in Rule 131. The court also considered the equal distribution of land and valuation to co-sharers and the relevance of previous possession in the partition process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the final decree passed in a partition suit under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The dispute arose from the allocation of land in a partition suit involving joint holdings of the parties. The petitioner objected to the allocation of land in the kurra, claiming unequal distribution and lack of consideration for his investments in the plots.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the kurras were prepared in accordance with Rule 131 of U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Rules, 1952, considering the principles of proportionate valuation, compact allocation, and non-splitting of existing fields. The court also noted that the distribution of trees and improvements was approximately equal, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The court rejected the argument that previous possession should be the sole criteria for the partition and upheld the legality of the kurras.
Issues: The issues involved unequal distribution of land, consideration of investments made by the petitioner, and the application of Rule 131 of U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Rules, 1952 in the partition process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the kurras were prepared in accordance with the principles of proportionate valuation, compact allocation, and non-splitting of existing fields as provided in Rule 131 of U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Rules, 1952. The court also emphasized that previous possession is not the sole criteria for partition and upheld the equal distribution of land and valuation to co-sharers.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's objections, and no interference was required.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Smt. Archana Tyagi, for the petitioner
2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the final decree passed by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 13.10.2005, Additional Commissioner dated 12.09.2006 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 05.06.2015, dismissing the appeal and second appeal of the petitioner, in partition suit under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. Plots 24 (area 1.6820 hectare), 30 (area 0.1690 hectare) and 150 (area 1.9710 hectare) of village Aterana, pargana Sardhana, district Meerut were joint holdings of Suresh, Om Pal, Dushyant and Ram Kumar. Suresh (brother of the petitioner) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 103/5) for partition of his 1/4 share. The petitioner did not file his written statement. Respondents-5 and 6 filed their written statement and admitted share of the parties as 1/4 each. Sub-Divisional Officer passed preliminary decree in the suit on 27.06.2005, holding 1/4 share each of the plaintiff and defendants-1 to 3. Sub-Divisional Officer also directed Lekhpal to prepare kurra. Thereafter Lekhpal prepared kurra and submitted in the Court on 25.07.2005, in which Suresh, (the plaintiff) was given his share in plot 150/4 (area 0.9105 hectare), Om Pal (the petitioner) was given his share in plot 150/2 (area 0.9105 hectare), Dushyant (respondent-5) was given his share in plots 24/2 (area 0.6810 hectare), 30/1 (area 0.1690 hectare) and 150/1 (area 0.1252 hectare) (total area 0.9752 hectare) and Ram Kumar (respondent-6) was given his share on plot 24/1 (area 0.9757 hectare). An area of 0.0250 hectare of plot 24/2 and 0.0250 hectare of plot 150/3, in which grove boring, nali tube-well and Deosthan were existing were remained joint of the parties.
4. The petitioner filed an objection on 04.08.2005 against kurra, and stated that there had been a private partition between parties of all the plots, in which the petitioner was given share in all the plots. The petitioner, by investing labour and money leveled his plots, made it fertile and also planted mango trees, which has been allotted in the kurra of Suresh, without giving any compensation to the petitioner. Lekhpal has not prepared kurra, according to previous possession of the parties. In the kurra the petitioner was given 0.9105 hectare land while respondents-5 and 6 were given 0.9752 hectare land thus unequal distribution has been made. Kurra is liable to be set aside.
5. Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 13.10.2005 held that kurras have been prepared by Lekhpal, according to the valuation and equal valuation land has been allotted to all the co-sharers. Lekhpal, in his statement, has stated that kurra has been prepared keeping in view of previous possession of the parties. Before partition, possession of one co-sharer, over specific portion of the land in immaterial. Kurras have been prepared according to the provisions of Rule 131 of U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Rules, 1952. On these findings, he rejected objection of the petitioner, confirmed the kurra and passed final decree in the suit. The petitioner and Suresh filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 3 of 2005-06) from the aforesaid decree. The appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 12.09.2006 held that there were two tube-wells, which were kept joint. In the kurras of Dushyant and Raj Kumar, 28 tree were falling while in the kurra of Om Pal and Suresh 30 trees were falling. Kurras were prepared on the basis of valuation and there is no illegality in it. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner and Suresh filed a second appeal (registered as Second Appeal No. 54 of 2006-07), which was dismissed by Board of Revenue, U.P. by order dated 05.06.2015. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there had been a private partition between the co-sharers. In which, all co-sharers were given
