Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Green Land Public School Samiti, Duhai Ghaziabad - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others - Respondent
Writ-B No. 55400 of 2015
Decided On : 20-11-2015
Mutation Case - Dispute over khata nos. 162 and 149, village Gujarpur Gaharwar - UP ZA and LR Act, Section 9A(2) - The court discussed the alleged admission in a mutation case, evidence from kutumb register, written statement, and statement of the Pradhan. The court also considered the filing and withdrawal of a suit under section 229B. The judgment emphasized that the case was not decided solely based on the alleged admission, and the finding regarding the minority of the respondent was upheld.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over khata nos. 162 and 149, village Gujarpur Gaharwar under section 9A(2) of UP ZA and LR Act. The petitioner sought to quash orders passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer, and the Consolidation Officer, which favored the contesting respondent's claim to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders were not solely based on the alleged admission in the mutation case and considered other evidence. It upheld the finding regarding the minority of the respondent and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders were based exclusively on the alleged admissions made in mutation proceedings. 2. Filing and withdrawal of the suit under section 229B by the contesting respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the case was not decided solely based on the alleged admission and upheld the finding regarding the minority of the respondent.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra for the petitioner and Sri SC Verma for the respondents.
2. CM Application (Substitution) No. 389327 of 21014 has been filed to bring on record heirs of the sole petitioner, since deceased. The application is within time. The respondents have no objection.
3. Accordingly, the said application is allowed.
4. Let the substituted heirs be incorporated forthwith.
5. The writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9A(2) of UP ZA and LR Act. The dispute in the writ petition relates to khata nos. 162 and 149, of village Gujarpur Gaharwar. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the orders dated 13.10.1982, 25.5.1981 and 11.1.1980, passed, respectively, by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer. Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer, Fatehgarh.
6. The land in question admittedly belonged to one Dular. The contesting respondent claims that he is son of Dular. Admittedly, the petitioner is daughter of Dular.
7. In the basic year record, the land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The contesting respondent Subedar filed objection under section 9A(2), claiming to be the son of Dular and, therefore, entitled to the property in dispute.
8. The petitioner denied that the objector Subedar was the son of Dular. She alleged that Subedar was the son of Gulab.
9. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection. The name of the petitioner was ordered to be expunged and the name of Subedar was ordered to be recorded. This order has been affirmed in appeal and revision.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have illegally allowed the objection of the respondent relying upon an alleged compromise dated 30.8.1967, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have admitted the claim of Subedar in a mutation case, which pertained to village Amritpur and Udhranpur Lilapur. He contends that an admission made by Subedar in Mutation Case No. 8 regarding land of village Gujarpur Geharwar has not been taken in consideration; therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated. Further, he has placed reliance on the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and she did not know or understand the contents of the compromise application filed in Mutation Case No. 7, wherein it was written that Subedar was son of Dular. On the basis of these averments, it has been contended that the admission was not binding upon the petitioner.
11. It is next submitted that Subedar had filed a suit under section 229B, being Suit No. 25 of 1965: Subedar v. Vidyawati, which was subsequently withdrawn, without any liberty having been granted to file a fresh suit. It is, therefore, contended that the objection under section 9A(2) regarding the same land was barred.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned orders and has submitted that the courts below have not based their judgements exclusively on the admission of the petitioner in the mutation case. The judgements of the courts below are based on other evidence available on record as well.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
14. On the basis of the submissions made, only two points arise for consideration in this writ petition. The first is as to whether the three judgements passed against the petitioner are based exclusively on the alleged admissions made in mutation proceedings which, according to the petitioner, is not permissible in view of the various judgements cited on her behalf. The other point is regarding filing and withdrawal of the suit under section 229B of the UP ZA & LR Act by the contesting respondent, regarding the land which is subject-matter of this writ petition.
15. In the context of the first submission made, I have carefully perused the orders passed by all
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
