Hari Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Hari Lal and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 106 OF 1977.
Decided On : 06-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Ashok Kumar Singh and Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Standing Counsel and Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229-B - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2) - Petitioners claimed rights as descendants of ancestors; the pedigree was disputed by respondents. Court held that the findings of lower authorities were based on substantial evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-24)

(B) Certiorari - Standard for grant - A writ of certiorari is not to be issued on mere asking but to correct jurisdictional errors; it is supervisory rather than appellate. (Paras 22-23)

Facts of the case:
The original petitioners claimed co-tenancy rights through ancestral lineage, which was contested by the respondents, leading to various legal proceedings including objections based on previously settled matters.

Findings of Court:
The authorities rejected the petitioners' claims based on a lack of proof of lineage and contradictory testimonies, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims.

Issues: The core issues were the validity of the ancestral claims and whether the findings of lower courts were perverse or illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the authorities' decisions were valid as they were based on substantive evidence, not merely procedural issues or presumptions.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claim of ancestral rights by petitioners (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding evidence and ownership (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. challenge to the validity of petitioners' evidence (Para 10 , 12 , 13)
4. court's analysis of concurrent findings (Para 15 , 16 , 18)
5. recognition of authority's findings and decisions (Para 20 , 21)
6. standard for issuing writ of certiorari (Para 22 , 23)
7. final dismissal of the writ petition (Para 24)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Original petitioners were claiming their rights on being descendants of Jhagan, allegedly a brother of Satai, predecessor-in-interest of contesting-respondents. Claim of original petitioners was that Satai and Jhagan belong to one ancestor, namely, Hinchu and Maharaj Deen, whereas contesting-respondents have disputed the pedigree relied on by original petitioners that they belong to a family of another Maharaj Deen and not Maharaj Deen son of Hinchu. The pedigree relied on by petitioners is reproduced hereinafter:

fgUpw

egjkt nhu

lrbZ

ckcw yky

Bkdqjnhu

ea'kk

ekrknhu

lqD[kw

ijlkn

cfydju

vuUrh

yM+dh

ijxkl

f'ko oDl

lgk;

jke vkSrkj

lqUnj

f'ko Hkh[k

nslbZ

nw/korh

mQZ

dkSnbZ

dksykgy

f'k[k.Mh

e[kw

tks[kbZ

eq=w

2. Before consolidation proceedings, original petitioners have filed a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950"), which reached upto the Board of Revenue, however, it was abated since consolidation proceedings were commenced.

3. After commencement of consolidation proceedings original petitioners filed objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") claiming co-tenancy right on basis of above referred pedigree which was objected by contesting-respondents. The Consolidation Officer has rejected objections filed by original petitioners on the ground of res judicata. The order was challenged before Settlement Officer of Consolidation and by order dated 23.07.1971 appeal was allowed and matter was remanded back to Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration.

4. On remand, the Consolidation Officer again considered the objections filed by rival parties and vide order dated 06.06.1972 objections filed by petitioners were again rejected mainly on the ground that property in dispute was not recorded in name of Satai in representative capacity. This finding was upheld by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority. So far as issue of res judicata is concerned, there was a specific finding that since earlier proceedings were abated, therefore, findings returned thereon have no legal consequence as such there was no res judicata.

5. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K. Rai, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Consolidation Officer has limited it's consideration on issue of rent receipt, which was not a proof of ownership, whereas the consistent case of petitioners was that the property was ancestral and he placed reliance on revenue record of 1282 Fasli wherein name of Maharaj Deen was mentioned and later on in 1320 Fasli, where name of Satai was also referred.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that oral evidence was led which proves the pedigree submitted on their behalf but the same has not been considered by Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that Appellate Authority has wrongly rejected evidence of a family register, considering it to be not prepared in accordance with law and Revisional Authority has also committed same error. Learned counsel submitted that counter submission about two Maharaj Deen in the village was not supported by any substantial evidence on record and it was not disputed that petitioners are descendants of Maharaj Deen and in case respondents fail to proof that there were two persons named as Maharaj Deen in village, the claim of petitioners considered to be proved.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners has