Dhan Raji vs Deputy Director of Consolidation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Smt. Dhan Raji – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others – Respondents
Writ -B No. -14278 of 1986
Decided on : 03-03-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shashi Kumar Dwivedi and Mr. Hanuman Kinkar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Triveni Shanker, Advocate along with Mr. Awadesh Kumar and Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocate

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article, 226 – Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Scheduled Areas (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1953 - Section 11, 9, 12, 48, 5 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 107, 108 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 87 and 88 – Power of High Court to issue certain writs – Arrest of person against whom warrant issued – Petitioners impugn validity of orders Deputy Director of Consolidation Camp Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation Varanasi Consolidation Officer rejecting petitioners claim for mutation of their rights over land which shall described – Held, Court does not consider it appropriate to enter those findings here in a writ petition three Authorities below have held otherwise an approach erroneous in law findings in correct legal perspective have to be recorded by Authorities of fact below – It is unfortunate indeed that there is no option with Court despite long lapse of time that this litigation has consumed but to remand Consolidation Officer for hearing and determination afresh in accordance with guidance in this judgment – Petition succeeds and is allowed.

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.), 481 482/1, 482/2, 483, 484, 485, 488/1, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573/2, 474, 475, 481 (mi.)	306v 306 c

3. Apart from the land, above mentioned, that was agricultural and, therefore, consolidated into a chak in Smt. Balraji's name, bearing Chak No.68, Smt. Balraji also owned certain plot numbers that did not qualify as land under the Act of 1953 and were, therefore, excluded from the consolidation scheme. Plots of land, that were not included as part of Chak No.68, belonging to Balraji, are shown below, also in tabular form:

Land excluded from consolidation operations
Old Number	New Number
102	799
167 M	899
150 M	847
156 x	879
212 d	53(min.)
218 b	66(min.)
378 [k	382

4. The dispute is with regard to land recorded in the basic year in the name of Smt. Balraji, comprising Chak No.68. It is the petitioners' case that the land in dispute was sold in favour of petitioner Nos.1 to 7 by petitioner No.8, Smt. Balraji vide registered sale deed dated 29.05.1974. Later on, a deed of rectification dated 12.07.1974 was executed by Smt. Balraji, inasmuch as in the sale deed dated 29.05.1974, one of the plots transferred in favour of petitioner Nos.1 to 7 was mentioned as Plot No.161/347, admeasuring 2 biswa 17 dhoor by an inadvertent clerical error, whereas the correct number of the plot sold was 1161/347 for the same area.

5. It is the petitioners' further case that by time the sale deed dated 29.05.1974 came to be executed, the chak carved out had been confirmed and the tenure holders delivered possession over their respective chak. Through the sale deed dated 29.05.1974, therefore, the entire area of Chak No.68 was transferred by Balraji to petitioner Nos.1 to 7. In addition, the sale deed also transferred certain other plots of land, that were outside the consolidation scheme. The old plot numbers no longer remained in existence and Chak No.68 had become identifiable in terms of the four new numbers as renumbered during the consolidation operations. Therefore, it is the petitioners' case that a typographical error in the mention of one of the plots, comprising the chak with reference to its old number would not affect the identity of the property transferred through the sale deed dated 29.05.1974 (for short, 'the sale deed').

6. It is also the petitioners' case that though in the basic year Smt. Balraji was recorded over a large tract of land, one Smt. Devraji, a half sister of Balraji's deceased husband, Chandra Shekhar and another Ram Jag, an uncle of the late Chandra Shekhar, filed objections during the consolidation operations much before the sale deed was executed, claiming a share in Chandra Shekhar's land, that had come to be recorded in Balraji’s name. The said objections were compromised and Smt. Devraji given a share in the h