Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Suman Kumar Pandey and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 730 of 2023
Decided On : 05-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar.
For the Respondents: Ayush Mittal, Vishnu Pandey.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 11 and Section 48, to the substitution and impleadment of parties in consolidation proceedings. The judgment emphasized the principles of natural justice and the just and equitable impleadment of parties based on the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:
Substitution - U.P.C.H. Act - Section 11, Section 48 - Summary of Acts and Sections: U.P.C.H. Act, Section 11, Section 48 - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 11 and Section 48, and their applicability to the substitution and impleadment of parties in the consolidation proceedings. The court highlighted the principles of natural justice and the scope of impleadment in consolidation proceedings based on the Transfer of Property Act. The judgment emphasized the just and equitable impleadment of parties and the control of the court over the subject matter of litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the substitution and impleadment of parties in an appeal under Section 11 of the U.P.C.H. Act pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioners challenged the orders allowing the substitution and impleadment of parties in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 11 and Section 48, were applicable to the case. It held that the principles of natural justice and the scope of impleadment in consolidation proceedings were crucial in ensuring a just and equitable resolution. The court emphasized that the impleadment of parties based on the Transfer of Property Act was in accordance with the law and would not prejudice the interests of the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 11 and Section 48, to the substitution and impleadment of parties in the consolidation proceedings. The court also addressed the rejection of the substitution application and subsequent amendment application, considering the principles of natural justice and the control of the court over the subject matter of litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the U.P.C.H. Act, the principles of natural justice, and the scope of impleadment in consolidation proceedings. It relied on the Transfer of Property Act to emphasize the just and equitable impleadment of parties and the court's control over the subject matter of litigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the impleadment of parties in the appeal was in accordance with the law and would not prejudice the interests of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ayush Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 and 17.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Pyari Devi had executed a registered agreement on 10.06.1960 in favour of Bechan Pandey in respect of the plot no. 180, 181 and 182 situated in Village Sarvanpur Pargana Kaswar Sarkari, Tehsil and District Varanasi (new plot no. 320/182, 322/180 and 323/181). The aforementioned agreement had been entered on 28.10.1960 and Smt. Pyari Devi had died in the year 1964. Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 have filed a case and challenged the entry of Ram Nath before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but the case had been dismissed on 23.06.1971 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Consolidation operation intervened in the village in question in the year 1977-78 by way of notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. In the basic year of the consolidation operation respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were recorded in respect to the plot in question. Against the basic year entry objection under Section 9(A)(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act had been filed by Bechan, Sahu, Sanktha and Vindhyawasini. Consolidation Officer allowed the objection vide order dated 03.03.1992. On the basis of order of Consolidation Officer dated 03.03.1992 petitioner’s ancestors had been recorded in the revenue records and they have established the educational institution in the year 1992 namely Atal Bihari Bajpayee Inter College which is functioning till date. Respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 had filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation after more than 7 years under Section 11 of the U.P.C.H Act. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 25.06.2002 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 03.03.1992 and maintained the basic year entry of the plot in dispute. Husband of respondent no. 7 namely Chhavi Nath and husband of respondent no. 17 namely Lallu have purchased aforesaid disputed plot no. 180, 181 and 182 (new plot no. 320/182, 322/180 and 323/181) from respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the year 2013 in fraudulent manner. Raj Kapoor, husband of Shashi and others alongwith petitioner have filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed before the Civil Court. Raj Kapoor, husband of Shashi and others alongwith petitioner have also filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 29.11.2013 against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.06.2002. During pendency of the revision before the revisional court Raj Kapoor and Shashi have entered into compromise, accordingly, they withdraw the case on 03.02.2017. Deputy Director Consolidation on 25.01.2018 allowed the revision, set aside the appellate order dated 25.06.2002 and remanded the matter before the Settlement Officer Consolidation with the direction that appeal be decided afresh after impleading Gaon Sabha and affording the opportunity of hearing to all the parties as well as to lead evidence. On 01.02.2018/16.02.2018 a substitution application was filed by Parvati , Sudama and Shashi with the prayer that they may be treated as appellant in appeal in place of Vipin Bihari and others on the basis of sale deed executed in favour of Sudama and others. After filing of the aforementioned substitution application a collusive compromise has been filed in the aforementioned proceedings. On 24.07.2018 petitioners have filed objection against the substitution application dated 16.02.2018 filed on behalf of Parvati, Sudama and Shashi in the appeal. On 03.05.2018 Settlement Officer Consolidation has rejected the substitution application of Parvati, Sudama and Shashi. On 06.06.2019, Parvati, Sudama and Shashi have filed another application with the prayer that in the earlier substitution application in place of word substitution word party to the proceeding be amended. On 06.11.2019 Settlement Officer Consolidation, Varanasi allowed the application dated 6.6.2019

Click Here to Read the rest of this document