Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vikram Nath, J.
Mool Chandra, Nanik Chand And Lotan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others - Respondents
Decided On : 28-03-2007
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Mutation Order - Sale Deed - Scheduled Caste - Consolidation Proceedings - U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 157-A, 166, 167, 168
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a sale deed executed by respondent No. 5 in favor of the petitioners, mutation orders, and consolidation proceedings. The petitioners argued that the sale deed was valid and not hit by Section 157-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, while respondent No. 5 contended that the sale deed was fraudulent and the land would vest in the State under Sections 166 and 167 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter required a trial court's consideration as questions of fact, such as whether respondent No. 5 signed the compromise and the caste of the parties, had not been decided based on evidence. The court also rejected the petitioners' argument that certain sections of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 would not be applicable during consolidation proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the sale deed, the caste of the parties, and the applicability of specific sections of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 during consolidation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the questions of fact required evidence and trial court consideration. It also clarified that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 would remain applicable during consolidation proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
Vikram Nath, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
2. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5
3. Pursuant to the sale deed dated 18.11.1989 alleged to have been executed by respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioners, the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.11.1990 passed an order of mutation with the consent of the parties directing for recording the name of the petitioners after deleting the name of respondent No. 5 along with an appeal was filed against the said order by respondent No. 5 along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application of delay was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 50/- by order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.2.1995. Further by order dated 8.2.2005 the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal respondent No. 5 and after setting aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision after affording opportunity of leading evidence to the parties and giving them an opportunity of hearing. Against the said order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 8.2.2005 the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.3.2007.
4. Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the sale deed executed on 18.11.1989 respondent No. 5 had specifically averred that he had adopted/embraced Baudh religion and that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. Further respondent No. 5 gave statement in the court of the Assistant Consolidation Officer that his name be deleted and the name of the petitioners may be recorded. In this backdrop of the matter respondent No. 5 could not have filed appeal alleging that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and, therefore, the sale deed in favour of the petitioners is hit by Section 157-A of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short referred to as U.P. Act No. 1 1951) and secondly that he had not signed on the compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is also submitted by Sri Paul that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded specific findings both in favour of the petitioners and also against the petitioners which are binding on the Consolidation Officer and may ultimately influence his decision. According to him there was nothing left for the Consolidation Officer to decide. Sri Paul has further submitted that the sale deed had been executed after obtaining necessary permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation and after the notification u/s 4 of the U.P.| Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short referred to as UP CH Act) wak published the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Actl950 (in short referred to as U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) had no application and the permission given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was all that, that was required and no permission was required u/s 157-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. According to him after the notification u/s 4(2) of the U.P. CH Act has been published the responsibility of maintaining the record and the right to prepare the village book, receipt book and the annual register was to be performed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and, therefore, the provisions provided under the UP CH Act alone can be looked into and no provisions from the UP Act No. 1 of 1951 can be taken into consideration and further that the provisions of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 shall remain suspended for the said period during which consolidation is going on so that there may not be any overlapping between the provisions of the two Acts.
5. On the other hand Sri P.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order of remand was passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation with certain observations in the light of which the Consolidation Officer was to decide the matter af
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
