Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Devi Charan and Others - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation Aligarh and Others - Respondent
Writ-B No. 66506 of 2010
Decided On : 07-10-2016
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Dispute over ancestral property - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 42-A
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a share of ancestral property in a village, with the petitioners and respondents being descendants of different branches of the common ancestor. The Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed orders regarding the share of the parties, which were challenged through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the Deputy Director of Consolidation had not committed any mistake in deciding the shares of respondents, mistakes were made in deciding the shares of the branch of Gulab. The court modified the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and determined the shares of the parties based on the pedigree.
Issues: The main issue was the correct determination of shares in the ancestral property, particularly regarding the descendants of different branches of the common ancestor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the pedigree and the correct application of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, particularly Section 42-A, in determining the shares of the parties.
Final Decision: The writ petition partly succeeded, and the court modified the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, determining the shares of the parties based on the pedigree.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. –
Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, for the petitioners and Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.01.2010 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.10.2010, passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The dispute relates to share of the parties in the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1139 of village and pargana Tappal, tahsil Kher, district Aligarh, in which names of the petitioners and respondents-4 to 9 were recorded. Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.02.2006 decided share of the parties. Respondents-4 to 9 filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 114 of 2009-10) from aforesaid order along with delay condonation application, alleging therein that their signatures were obtained on plain papers, which was later on utilized for manufacturing conciliation proceeding and their share were not correctly decided. The disputed land was ancestral property coming from the time of common ancestor Ganga Ram, who had total 180 bigha land. Ganga Ram was inherited by his two sons Gulab and Teeka. The petitioners are descendants of Gulab and respondents-4 to 9 are descendants of Teeka. Gulab had four sons Bhupal, Kundan, Ram Lal and Kishori. Branch of Ram Lal was issueless and his share was jointly inherited by Bhupal, Kundan and Kishori. Thereafter their share was 1/6 each. Branch of Bhupal sold his ? share (i.e. 30 bigha) in aforesaid ancestral property, in favour of remaining persons of his branch in 1961. Tahsildar by order dated 02.06.1962 directed for mutation of the names of transferees and made a separate khata of this land, which was came to be recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1120. Remaining land (i.e. 150 bigha) was recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1139. Therefore branch of Teeka jointly have ? share (i.e. 90 bigha) and branch of Gulab jointly have 2/5 share (60 bigha) in it.
4. Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 08.10.2009, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and by order dated 29.01.2010, partly allowed the appeal. He included land of khata 1120 in khata 1139 and held that Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) have 1/36 share each, Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-5 to 6) have 1/24 share each, Ratan and Ram Chandra (now petitioners-7 to 10) have ? share each, Rajbeer (respondent-4) and Yadram (respondent-9) have ? share each, Santosh, Khajan, Pohap Chand and Kunwar Pal (respondents-5 to 8) have 1/24 share each. In pursuance of order dated 29.01.2010, Settlement Officer Consolidation corrected the records exercising powers under Section 42-A of the Act on 18.03.2010.
5. It may be mentioned that Settlement Officer Consolidation, while deciding share, has inadvertently left in deciding share of Narain son of Gopal. Gopal, whose share was determined as 1/6, had three sons as such share of Narain would be 1/18, share of Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) would be 1/54 share each and share of Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-4 to 5) would be 1/36 share each according to his order.
6. The petitioner filed four revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 191, 232, 234 and 303), from the aforesaid orders. Deputy Director of Consolidation, consolidated the revisions and heard together and his order dated 27.10.2010, partly allowed Revision Nos. 191 and 232 and dismissed Revision Nos. 234 and 303. He excluded land of khata 1120 from partition. In khata 1139, he held that Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) jointly have ? share, Ratan and Ram Chandra (now petitioners-7 to 10) jointly have ? share, Rajbeer (respondent-4) and Yadram (respondent-9) have ? share each, Santosh, Khajan, Pohap Chand and Kunwar Pal (respondents-5 to 8) jointly have ?
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
