Shyam Singh vs Leelu - 2023 Supreme(All) 2598

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Shyam Singh and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Leelu and Others - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 18154 OF 1998.
Decided On : 16-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sri A.C. Nishad, Standing Counsel, Sri H.M.B Sinha, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 - Section 48 - Decision in second round of litigation regarding ancestral land claim - The court found that the respondents failed to prove the ancestral character of the land in dispute. The impugned order of the Revisional Court was set aside due to lack of examination in accordance with statutory factors necessary for revisional authority. (Paras 8(ii), 8(iii))

(B) Res Judicata - The principle prevents parties from relitigating settled matters. The court confirmed that this was the second round of litigation concerning the same dispute since 1971, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the earlier decisions and observations made by the court regarding documentary evidence and oral evidence. (Paras 2, 8(i))

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of certain land, asserting it was personal Sir and Khudkast, while the respondents contended it was ancestral property. The dispute involved protracted litigation, including previous judgments and remittance for fresh evaluation by consolidation authorities. (Paras 2-3, 5-6)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the respondents did not substantiate their claims regarding the land being ancestral. The earlier findings from the Appellate Court were upheld due to lack of credible evidence from the respondents. (Paras 8(ii), 8(i))

Issues: Whether the land was ancestral and whether the respondents provided sufficient proof; whether the Revisional Court properly considered statutory factors in its decision making. (Paras 7, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revisional authority failed to adhere to the required examination of prior orders and substantial evidence, and merely relied on procedural remittance without substantial evidential foundation. (Paras 8(i), 8(iii))

Result: Writ petition allowed with impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. dispute involves ancestral versus personal claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. previous litigation involved consolidation issues. (Para 4)
3. arguments focus on evidential basis of claims. (Para 5)
4. court observed issues in prior proceedings. (Para 6 , 7)
5. impugned order lacked proper evaluation. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Parties are litigating since 1971 and they are before this Court in their second round of litigation since 1998 and after 25 years the writ petition is finally are decided.

2. Crux of Dispute

(i) Parties to dispute admittedly belonged to common ancestor namely Sarjeet who has two sons namely Saman and Hira.

(ii) Petitioners and respondents are from Saman's two sons namely Shiv Sahai and Munshi. Some respondents are from Hira, the other son of Sarjeet.

(iii) Admitted pedigree is as follow :-

Sarjit

Saman

Gogal

Gopal

Shivsahai

Sohan

Pat Ram

Ram Lal

Sahaj Ram

Shyam Singh

Sheoram

Tika Ram

Ram Phal

Ganga

Sahai

Risal

Bhondu

Ram

Swaroop

Shiv

Charan

Harbal

Lakhi

Chand

Hargolal

Munshi

@ Sheobaran

Hari

Chand

Leelu

Jaipal

Jeevan

Dheer

Chand

Hira

Sheo

Bux

Tule

Ram

Bholey

Ram

(iv) Present dispute is related only to land bearing Khata No. 261, 519 and 520 and dispute in regard to Khata No.292 stood finalized by a judgment dated 17.12.1982 passed by High Court.

(v) Petitioners and now their legal heirs have set up their claim that land in dispute was their personal Sir and Khudkast, whereas according to respondents and their legal heirs, land in dispute was an ancestral land.

3. First Round of Litigation:-

(i) After consolidation proceedings commenced, counter objections were filed by respective parties. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 15.09.1971 has rejected objections of the respondents and accepted claim of the petitioners.

(ii) The appeal thereof and a revision thereof filed by respondents were dismissed by respective orders dated 14.12.1997 and 20.09.1972 passed by Assistant Settlement officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.

(iv) The respondents thereafter have approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition bearing No.598 of 1973 which was allowed by an order dated 26.11.1982 and impugned order therein dated 20.09.1972 was set aside and matter was remitted to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh, keeping in view of observation and direction made in the order.

(v) The relevant observations and directions passed by High Court in above referred judgment and order are as follows :-

"I find that the revisional court and the appellate authority have ignored the effect of oral evidence in a very perfunctory manner. When the co-sharers give statement to the effect that the disputed property is ancestral, its impact on the claim of the petitioners should have been examined in greater detail. In the compromise of the year 1947, the petitioners have been recognized as co-sharers in Khewat Nos. 13 and 19 and it has not been examined by the consolidation authorities as to whether the disputed land forms the subject matter of Khewat no. 13 and 19 or not.

To me it appears that the consolidation authorities have not examined the impor of decree in Suit No. 35 of 1947 regarding the claim of the petitioners in the disputed khatas. Before me, a number of documents have been filed and it has been demonstrated that some of the plots of Khewat Nos. 13 and 19 stood in the name of the petitioners' father Munshi, hence I have a feeling that the revisional court should be asked to re-examine the claim of the petitioners and the documents filed before this Court can be taken back by the learned counsel for petitioners and the same can be produced before the revisional court which will appreciate the same while dealing with the claim of the petitioners in the disputed land.

A suggestion has been made that the petitioners' father and the contesting opposite party Ram Lal (opposite party no.4) had purchased Khewat in the year 1923 an