2023 Supreme(All) 332
J. J. MUNIR
Dhan Raji – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashi Kumar Dwivedi and Mr. Hanuman Kinkar.
For the Respondent:Mr. Triveni Shanker, Advocate along with Mr. Awadesh Kumar and Mr. R.K. Pandey.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Case Details: The case is Smt. Dhan Raji vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, a Writ Petition (B No. 14278 of 1986) decided by the High Court of Allahabad on 03-03-2023. [judgement_act_referred] (!)
- Parties Involved: The petitioners (Nos. 1 to 7) are successors to Smt. Balraji, who sold land in their favor. The respondents include the Consolidation Authorities and Asharam (and his heirs), who claimed rights over the same land. (!) (!)
- Core Dispute: The petitioners challenged the orders of three Consolidation Authorities (Consolidation Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer, and Deputy Director of Consolidation) which rejected their claim for mutation of rights based on a sale deed executed by Smt. Balraji. (!)
- Sale Deed Facts: Smt. Balraji executed a registered sale deed on 29.05.1974 transferring Chak No. 68 and other non-consolidated plots to the petitioners. A deed of rectification dated 12.07.1974 corrected a clerical error where an old plot number (161/347) was mistakenly written instead of the correct renumbered plot (1161/347). (!) (!) (!)
- Lower Authorities' Findings:
- They held the sale deed void under Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1953, as it allegedly transferred only a "part" of the holding without permission. (!) (!)
- They presumed Smt. Balraji was "civilly dead" (missing) since she went on a pilgrimage around 10 years prior and had not been heard of for seven years by witnesses in her husband's village. (!) (!)
- Based on this presumption of death and Asharam's pedigree, they ruled that Asharam was the heir and the land should vest in him, rejecting the petitioners' claim. (!) (!)
- Petitioners' Arguments:
- The sale deed transferred the entire holding (Chak No. 68), not a part, thus not violating Section 5(c)(
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners, who are eight in number, impugn the validity of the orders dated 05.06.1986, 05.09.1985 and 02.11.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, Camp Gyanpur, the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Varanasi (West) and the Consolidation Officer, Gyanpur, District Varanasi (now Bhadohi), respectively, rejecting the petitioners' claim for mutation of their rights over land, which shall be hereinafter morefully described.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are required to be noticed about their salient features, which are these:
One Balraji, widow of Chandra Shekhar, was the recorded tenure holder of the following plot numbers, which are shown below in tabular form indicating the old numbers and the new:
| Old Number | New Number | Chak Number |
| 292, 293/1, 293/2, 345, 346, 347, 348/1, 349, 363, 364, 521, 1161/347, 1162/346 | 366 | 68 |
| 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 | 331 | |
| 457, 475, 476, 479, 480 (mi.), 481 | 306 v | |
| 482/1, 482/2, 483, 484, 485, 488/1, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573/2, 474, 475 |
| |
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
