IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Smt Ram Dei - Petitioner
Versus
Joint Director of Consolidation And Ors. - Respondents
Writ - B No. -3934 of 1985
Decided On : 23-04-2020
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -Section 9-A(2) – writ petition questions a non-concurrent determination of objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by the Consolidation Authorities – Held, In his one line reasoning, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation says no more than this that the orientation or direction of the lines, in one of the specimens is to the left whereas in the other, to the right. There is no mention in the slightest measure about the main pattern type, which if similar, a distinction drawn on the basis of sub-pattern type, with reference to lines opening to the left or the right. The opinion expressed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, appears to be utterly uninformed and based on no more than what is popularly called, “common sense”. This kind of a reasoning bereft of reference to the cardinal principles, evolved by the science of finger print identification, cannot be accepted to be any reason at all. The findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on this count must be held to be bereft of reason. It would, therefore, vitiate the conclusion – Petition allowed
Facts of the Case:
Dispute in this petition relates to agricultural land located in two different villages of District Ghazipur. One of these is Khata no.52, admeasuring 2 bigha 2 biswa 5 dhoor, situate at Village Sindura, Pargana Jamania, District Ghazipur. In the basic year, this Khata was recorded in the name of Ram Naresh Tiwari son of Devi Tiwari, Smt. Ram Dei Kunwar wife of Basdev Tiwari and Smt. Sona Kunwar daughter of Ram Swarup Tiwari and wife of Sarju Tiwari
Finding of the Court:
In his one line reasoning, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation says no more than this that the orientation or direction of the lines, in one of the specimens is to the left whereas in the other, to the right. There is no mention in the slightest measure about the main pattern type, which if similar, a distinction drawn on the basis of sub-pattern type, with reference to lines opening to the left or the right. The opinion expressed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, appears to be utterly uninformed and based on no more than what is popularly called, “common sense”. This kind of a reasoning bereft of reference to the cardinal principles, evolved by the science of finger print identification, cannot be accepted to be any reason at all. The findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on this count must be held to be bereft of reason. It would, therefore, vitiate the conclusion.
Result : Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition questions a non-concurrent determination of objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) by the Consolidation Authorities.
2. The objections were brought by the petitioner, Ram Dei, since deceased and represented by her LRs, against one Smt. Sona Kunwar, represented before this Court by Ramji Tiwari, since deceased. Ramji Tiwari, original respondent no. 3 to this writ petition, is now represented by his heirs and legal representatives, substituted pendente lite. The objections also sought relief against respondent nos.4 and 5, that is to say, Jagardev Tiwari and Mukhdev Tiwari. Both these respondents have died pending this petition and are represented by their heirs and legal representatives. Before this Court, the claim of the petitioner is confined to the interest of Ramji Tiwari in terms more fully set out hereinafter. So far as respondent nos.4 and 5 are concerned, it appears that parties have buried the hatchet and are at peace with the way the event has gone before the Authorities below. Thus, there appears to be no conflict or lis inter se the petitioner on one hand and respondent nos.4 and 5 on the other, before this Court. So far as respondent no.6 is concerned, the said respondent asserts herself to be Sona Kunwar, mother of the third respondent and wife of one Sarju Tiwari. This Sona Kunwar has been called an impostor by another woman, who contested these proceedings and claimed to be the real Sona Kunwar. Sona Kunwar’s interest is represented by respondent no.3, now before this Court through his legal representatives.
3. The dispute in this petition relates to agricultural land located in two different villages of District Ghazipur. One of these is Khata no.52, admeasuring 2 bigha 2 biswa 5 dhoor, situate at Village Sindura, Pargana Jamania, District Ghazipur. In the basic year, this Khata was recorded in the name of Ram Naresh Tiwari son of Devi Tiwari, Smt. Ram Dei Kunwar wife of Basdev Tiwari and Smt. Sona Kunwar daughter of Ram Swarup Tiwari and wife of Sarju Tiwari. The other part of land, subject matter of dispute between parties is located at Village Kusi, Pargana Jamania, District Ghazipur. It comprises Khata nos.245 and 542, admeasuring a total of 7 bighas 17 biswas 2 dhoors. In the basis year, it is recorded in the name of Jagardev Tiwari and Mukhdev Tiwari, both sons of the late Ram Naresh Tiwari, Smt. Ram Dei Kunwar wife of Basdev Tiwari and Smt. Sona Kunwar daughter of Ram Swarup Tiwari, wife of Sarju Tiwari.
4. The land above described above, shall hereinafter be called as ‘the Khata in question’.
5. It would be apposite to indicate the relationship between parties traceable to their ancestors before setting out the origin and course of proceedings, that have led to this petition. Ram Swarup Tiwari, Mathura Tiwari and Ram Naresh Tiwari were brothers. The Khata in question is part of an ancestral holding of these brothers, the fuller detail of which may not be very relevant. Sona Kunwar is the daughter of Ram Swarup Tiwari. Kunwar, wife of Ram Swarup Tiwari. Smt. Ram Dei Kunwar (the petitioner) is wife of Basdev Tiwari son of Mathura Tiwari. Jagardev Tiwari and Mukhdev Tiwari are sons of the late Ram Naresh Tiwari. It appears that Ram Swraup Tiwari died sometime before the year 1938, and Smt. Phula Kunwar inherited his rights in the then larger joint khata of the family, comprising his brothers and co-laterals. It is common ground between parties that Phula Kunwar sued for partition, that led to a partition decree dated 31.03.1938. This decree brought Smt. Phula Kunwar a share of 1/6th in the joint khata of her husband’s two brothers and co-laterals. The aforesaid 1/6th share in the erstwhile joint khata, that came to be partitioned and fell to the share of Smt. Phula Kunwar vide decree dated 31.03.1983, ma
Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka
Asiatic Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Sub- Lt. Arabinda Chakravarti
Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, (1966) 2 SCR 286
Biswanath Sahu and others vs. Mrs. Tribeni Mohan (dead) by L.R.s and others
Hardev Singh vs. Gurmail Singh (dead) By LRs
Jharu Ram Roy vs. Kamjit Roy and others
Madhusudan Das vs. Narayanibai (Deceased) by LRs and others
Mahipat Missir and others vs. Ganpat Sah and others
Ram Sarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.