Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
Dayaram - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - B No. 2896 of 2023
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Zamindari Abolition - Division of Holdings - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 176, 177, 331, 333 - Rules 131 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent no.6, real brothers, claimed half share each in jointly possessed ancestral property. The petitioner filed a partition suit seeking division of the holdings. The court passed a preliminary decree accepting their claim. Dissatisfied with the allocation of shares, the petitioner filed objections and subsequent appeals, which were dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders and prevent interference with their possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the contentions of both parties and the maintainability of the writ petition. It emphasized the legal context of 'concurrent findings of fact' and the extent of interference by Writ Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found no manifest error of law, perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three Revenue Courts warranted interference by the court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the legal principles related to concurrent findings of fact and the extent of interference by Writ Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the High Court should ordinarily restrain itself from interfering with concurrent findings of fact, especially when not the appellate court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no manifest error of law, perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity in the impugned orders.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Shiv Ram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6; Shri Awadesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no. 1 to 4; Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha-respondent no. 5 and perused the pleadings available on record.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to finally decide the present writ petition at the admission stage itself.
3. The relevant facts in nutshell that are necessary for the better appreciation of the case; as narrated by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner and the contesting respondent no.6 are real brothers and claimed half (1/2) share each in the jointly possessed ancestral property / holding with plot nos. 756/0.247, 742/0.130, 758/0.570 and 760/0.117 situated at village Saraiharkhu, Pargana Rari, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur.
4. The petitioner filed a partition Suit under section 176 / 177 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking division of the holdings, in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur (respondent no.4). The said suit was registered as T2016143602908 (Dayaram Versus Bharat).
5. In the aforesaid Suit a preliminary decree was passed on 08.03.2016 by the learned Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur, whereby the claim of the petitioner and respondent no.6 to the half (½) share each, in the property in suit was accepted / declared. Accordingly, the Lekhpal concerned was directed to prepare the Kurrafaat on the basis of possession and documents.
6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 08.03.2016, the Lekhpal concerned submitted a detailed kurrafaat report on 17.04.2016 and thereafter his statement was recorded on 05.05.2016. As per the said kurrafaat dated 17.04.2016, plot no. 742 Sa / 0.0650 and plot no. 756 Sa / 0.2105 came to be allocated / earmarked in favour of the respondent no.6 while plot no. 742 Sa / 0.650, plot no. 756 Sa / 0.0365, 758 / 0.057 and plot no. 760 / 0.117 in favour of the petitioner.
7. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid kurrafaat preapred by the Lekphal, the petitioner filed an objection on 10.05.2016, before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (respondent no. 4), inter alia praying for cancellation of the said kurrafaat dated 17.04.2016 and for the preparation of a fresh kurrafaat by other Lekhpal.
8. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4) taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner and the factual aspect of the case and vide order dated 13.05.2016 confirmed the kurrafaat dated 17.04.2016 and passed the final decree. Thereafter, a spot-memo was submitted on 23.05.2016 by the Revenue Inspector, to the effect that the Revenue Team along with the Police force, carried out the measurement / demarcation on the basis of the aforesaid kurrafaat dated 17.04.2016.
9. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4), the petitioner filed an Appeal, under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Court of learned Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The said appeal having Appeal No. 351 of 2016 was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2017, passed by the learned Court of Additional Commissioner (1st), Varanasi Division, Varanasi.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal under Section 331 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the learned Board of Revenue, U.P., at Allahabad (respondent no.2) challenging the aforesaid orders dated 13.05.2016 and 31.05.2017. The said Appeal was registered as Case No. SA/1287/2017/Jaunpur (Computerised case No. AL20171436001287) titled as Daya Ram versus Bharat Kumar and others. The lear
The court upheld the finality of the land partition decree, confirming that all procedural safeguards were adhered to in preparing and confirming the Kurra, thus denying the petitioners' claims again....
The court upheld that concurrent findings by lower authorities on land ownership are not to be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the need for solid evidence in claims over ancestral versu....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 in the preparation of kurra, and the necessity to consid....
Claims regarding land share must be substantiated by proper procedural evidence; entries in consolidation forms alone do not establish finality in disputes.
Family arrangements promoting peace and preventing disputes are upheld; oral partitions must be substantiated by clear evidence to be enforceable.
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
