Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Ragho Ram and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Ors. - Respondent
Writ-B No. 399 of 1979
Decided On : 03-07-2019
For the Appellant : P.K. Pandey, Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, J.D. Pandey and Y.S. Bohara
For the Respondents: Vinod Kumar Singh, C.K. Rai, Haider Hussain, S.C. and V.K. Singh
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226/227 – U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Section 9A(2) – Consolidation – Khatas and Share – Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed by Ragho Ram, Tirathraj alias Bullu and Dadan, all three sons of Sri Nath; and, Shiv Garul challenging order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad insofar as the same pertain to Khata Nos. 63 and 78 – Whether the plaintiffs Narbada Prasad s/o. Ram Tawankul and Rajmani s/o. Murli are the heirs of Asharam – Whether Sahdei and Sugga are daughters of Asharam and Ram kali and whether Narbada Prasad is the son of Sahdei, and Rajmani, of Sugga – Whether the plaintiff Narbada Prasad is the bhoomidhar and sirdar of the Araji in question – Whether the defendants are the bhoomidhar and sirdar of the Araji in question – What share parties have in the khatas – Held, It was held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by Subordinate Courts. – It also held that when subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. – However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. – Power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. – The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others v. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353, and Bandaru Satyanarayana v. Imandi Anasuya, (2011) 12 SCC 650. – Court do not find that the orders impugned in this writ petition do satisfy any of the relevant considerations, as noticed above, so as to justify interference by this Court in this writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. – Court find no merit in this writ petition. – Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri H.M.B. Sinha, Advocate, for petitioners; and, learned Standing Counsel and Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for respondents.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed by Ragho Ram, Tirathraj alias Bullu (both now deceased and substituted by their legal heirs) and Dadan, all three sons of Sri Nath; and, Shiv Garul (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) challenging order dated 22.11.1976 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as "ASOC") and the order dated 5.10.1978 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "DDC") insofar as the same pertain to Khata Nos. 63 and 78.
3. Pleadings, as emerge from Writ Petition, are that petitioners 1, 2 and 3 purchased Plots No. 76, 139/2, 299, 300 to 308, 355, 356, 357, 361, 362, area 5 bigha 2, biswa of Khata No. 63 through registered sale-deed dated 23.8.1958 executed by Raj Mani. Similarly, petitioner-4 purchased Plots No. 109, 111, 116, 117, 139/8 area 2 bigha 16 biswa in Khata No. 78 through registered sale-deed dated 23.8.1958 from Raj Mani. The aforesaid land is situated in Village Khajuri Khurd, Tappa Daiya, Pargana Khairagarh, District Allahabad In 1975-76 consolidation operations commenced in Village. Petitioners-1, 2 and 3 were recorded bhumidhar in respect of plots which were in their possession and purchased by them as aforesaid, comprised Khata No. 63. Similarly petitioner-4 was recorded Bhumidhar in respect of plots comprised of Khata No. 78.
4. Respondent-4, however, filed an objection under section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1953") before Consolidation Officer, Meza, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "C.O.") stating that he and Raj Mani, being daughters' son of Asha Ram, inherited half share each, but in Revenue record/name of only Raj Mani was entered and he had no right to sell anything more than his half share, therefore, sale-deeds executed by him, of entire land, was illegal and void.
5. Petitioners filed separate written statements contesting the claim set up by respondent-4. It was alleged that Asha Rain died issueless; petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration from Raj Marti who was duly recorded as sole tenant, prior to 1359 Fasali, and after becoming Bhumidhar executed sale deed to petitioners on 23.8.1958; Raj Mani also delivered possession of disputed land; petitioners are in continuous cultivatory possession of disputed land, hence right of respondent-4, if any, extinguished. It was further pleaded that respondent-4 has not filed any suit for cancellation of sale-deeds. Now Consolidation Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to respondent-4. The objections filed by Narbada Prasad was also in respect to some other Khatas, i.e., 58, 67, 83, 115 and 167 but petitioners in the present case are not concerned with land under those Khatas.
6. Respondent-4, in support of his claim filed Khataunies of 1334 Fasali and 1347 Fasali. 1334 Fasali Khatauni showed that in respect to Khata No. 63, only five plots, i.e., 356, 357, 358, 361 and 362 were recorded in the name of Asha Ram and subsequently in 1347 Fasali, the same got recorded in the name of Widow of Asha Ram, i.e., Mrs. Ram Kali.
7. CO vide order dated 12.5.1976 has formulated following five issues:
Hindi pending
"1. Whether the plaintiffs Narbada Prasad s/o. Ram Tawankul and Rajmani s/o. Murli are the heirs of Asharam?"
^^1& D;k oknh ucZnk izlkn iq= jke roadqy o jkt efu iq= eqjyh vk'kkjke ds okfjl gSa\^^
"2. Whether Sahdei and Sugga are daughters of Asharam and Ram kali and whether Narbada Prasad is the son of Sahdei, and Rajmani, of Sugga?"
^^2& D;k lgnsbZ o lqXxk vk'kkjke o jkedyh dh yM+fd;k Fkh] o uoZnk izlkn lgnsbZ o jktefu lqXxk ds yM+ds gSa\^^
"3. Whether the plaintiff Narbada Prasad is the bhoomidhar and sirdar of the Araji in question?"
^^3& D;k oknh uoZnk izlkn vkjkth futkbZ dk Hkwfe?kj
