Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Jageshwar and anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation Lucknow and ors. - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 694 OF 2012.
Decided On : 08-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Piyush Chandra Agarwal, Abdul Shadab Khan, Abhinav Trivedi, Durgesh Kumar Rajput, Jay Prakash Singh, Paresh Mishra, Parijat Mishra Belavra, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Rajendra Pratap Singh, Ravi Prakash Mishra, Sameer Kumar, Satyendra Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Amit Tripathi, Anand Mani Tripathi, Mohd. H.U. Ansari, Shashendra Pratap Singh, Sher Bahadur Yadav

The failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 12, 48, 4(2), and 52 - Dispute over property rights - Petitioners, grandsons of late Maika, challenged orders affecting their claim to property - The revisional authority failed to frame issues or consider evidence, depriving petitioners of their rights - The court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory procedures in determining property rights. (Paras 2, 6, 31, 33)

(B) Procedural Fairness - The court reiterated that authorities must frame issues and allow evidence to be presented before making determinations on property rights, as per statutory provisions. (Paras 30, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash several orders affecting their claim to property recorded in the name of their grandmother, late Maika, asserting their rights based on succession. The revisional authority's findings were contradictory and did not follow due process.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities failed to comply with statutory requirements, leading to a denial of the petitioners' rights. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for proper consideration.

Issues: The main issues included whether the authorities properly framed issues and considered evidence regarding the petitioners' claims to the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to frame issues and allow evidence constituted a violation of procedural fairness, necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

Manish Kumar, J.

Heard Shri. Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Shri. Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 assisted by Shri. P. Venkatesh, Advocate. However, as far as respondent nos. 5 to 10 are concerned, it is mentioned in the service report dated 23.10.2013 that notices were issued to them by speed post but neither any undelivered cover received back as yet and none appear for their behalf. It has also been apprised to this Court that Shri. Sher Bahadur Yadav had filed vakalatnama on 17.05.2023 on behalf of respondent no. 4 but due to some inadvertence, respondent no. 6 was mentioned in place of respondent no. 4.

2. Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the judgment and order of the revisional Court dated 20.09.2012 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 under Section 48 of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1953) and the impugned judgment and orders dated 02.07.2010 and dated 31.10.2005 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2005 passed by the respondent no. 3-Consolidation Officer as well as the impugned order dated 04.07.2005 i.e. the order of remand passed by the Consolidation Officer have also been challenged.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners may be permitted not to press the prayer made in the present petition as far as it is related to the quashing of the impugned orders dated 28.07.2005 and 04.07.2005.

4. As prayed, the petition is dismissed as not pressed as far as it is related to prayers whereby quashing of the impugned orders dated 02.07.2005 and 04.07.2005 has been challenged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Village Sarawan, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow had undergone in consolidation proceedings vide notification issued under Section 4(2)of the Act, 1953 on 31.01.1970 and the notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 was issued on 11.02.2006.

6. The dispute in the present petition is with regard to the plot No. 194, which was recorded in the name of late Maika-wife of i.e. the grand mother of the petitioners.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioners being the grand son of late Maika moved an application under Section 12 of the Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer for taking decision on matters relating to changes and transactions affecting the rights or interest recorded in the revised records. The said application preferred by the petitioners were allowed by order dated 17.07.2004.

8. Against the order dated 17.07.2004, an appeal was preferred by late Ram Khelawan before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 stating therein that his objection under Section 12 was pending and without deciding the same, the application of the petitioners were allowed by order dated 17.07.2004. The appeal preferred by late Ram Khelawan was allowed and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer.

9. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Officer had allowed the application of respondent no. 4-Bhuinyadeen and rejected the application filed on behalf of late Ram Khelawan-the predecessor of respondent nos. 5 to 10, without deciding the application of the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act, 1953. Even the issues were not framed for determining the rights of the petitioners. It was treated that the order passed in favour of the petitioners dated 17.07.2004 had already been set aside by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while deciding the appeal by its judgment and order dated 04.07.2005.

10. It is further submitted that aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by its judgment and order dated 31.10.2005 wit