Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Smt. Saghira – Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. And Others – Respondents
Writ B. No. 11339 Of 1981
Decided On : 31-07-2023
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Dispute over Khata ownership - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9 - Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, regarding ownership of two Khatas. The original petitioner claimed to be the widow of Zainuddin and sought to have her name entered in place of another recorded name. The original respondent alleged that the petitioner had remarried and was not entitled to the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original petitioner had not remarried and was entitled to the land as the widow of Zainuddin. The court upheld the findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the original petitioner had remarried and thus forfeited her entitlement to the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on evidence including family register entries and oral testimony to conclude that the original petitioner had lived with another man but had not remarried. The absence of a Nikahnama was not sufficient to disregard this evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found that the original petitioner had not remarried and was entitled to the land.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shree Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Facts of the present case as curled out of the writ petition are as follows:
(ii) Dispute relates to two Khatas one bearing No.223, situated in Village- Pachrukhiya Tappa, wherein in the basic year, name of Hamid, Mahmood and Smt. Saitul were recorded. The other Khata bearing No. 215, is situated in Village- Sahrauna, wherein in the basic year, name of the original petitioner i.e Smt. Saghira, was recorded.
(iii) Original petitioner has filed an objection only in respect of Khata No.223 of village Pachrukhiya Tappa, that she is the widow of Zainuddin, and her name be entered in place of Smt. Saitul, recorded wrongly. In respect of other Khata No.215, Smt. Saitul, original respondent no.3, filed an objection alleging that she is mother of Zainuddin and Smt. Saghira has no concern being widow of another person and after death of her husband she remarried with a person namely, Ismail of village-Ganeshpur, and further that her son never got married to Smt. Saghira.
3. Two cases were considered by two independent Consolidation Officers having separate jurisdiction.
4. After the death of Zainuddin, original respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul) reported that she is mother of Zainuddin and last recorded tenant. An objection was filed to it by the original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) and it was ordered to record her name in place of Zainuddin.
5. Against the said order, a reference was made by the original respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul) before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur which was dismissed vide order dated 20.6.1966.
6. Original petitioner (Smt. Saghira), thereafter filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1950’), but the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.8.1967. However, the appeal filed thereof by the original petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur was allowed vide order dated 21.8.1968 and it was declared that the original petitioner was widow of Zainuddin and she has not remarried and therefore, had succeeded the tenancy of her husband.
7. The original contesting respondent no. 3 preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 29.7.1969 remanded the matter only on a limited issue of possession and the other issues such as that original petitioner was wife of Zainuddin and that she never remarried after death of her husband, were not disturbed.
8. On remand, Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur vide order dated 22.3.1971, decided the issue of possession, and held that original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) was in possession of the disputed land being a Sirdar.
9. Aforesaid order was challenged by way of filing a second appeal. However, since consolidation proceedings commenced, proceedings of second appeal were abated vide order dated 20.10.1975.
10. In these circumstances, two separate objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer during consolidation proceedings before two Consolidation Officers having jurisdiction in the matter.
11. Consolidation Officer dealing with the case in respect of Khata No.223 of Village Pachrukhiya Tappa, vide order dated 30.6.1975 allowed the objection filed by original petitioner (Smt. Saghira), whereas the Consolidation Officer dealing with other Khata No. 215 of Village-Sahrauna, allowed the objections filed by original respondent no.3(Smt. Saitul) vide order dated 16.11.1976.
12. Both the above referred orders were challenged by the aggrieved parties by way of filing independent appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by a common order dated 1.8.1979 whereby t
The absence of a formal marriage document does not negate other evidence of marital status.
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
The court held that succession rights require substantiated proof of parentage, emphasizing the need for reliable documentation in inheritance claims under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court affirmed the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand cases for fresh decisions when evidence requires further inquiry, underscoring the need for thorough examination bef....
It is worthy to note that on the death of a female bhumidhar succession to holding goes not to her heirs but to "nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar". In other words it is the heirs of ....
Dismissal of prior suit for maintainability does not determine current rights, and failure to consider evidence results in perverse findings necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
Non-compliance with evidentiary standards in determining legitimacy of adoption leads to reversal of findings regarding inheritance and property rights.
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
