SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 2272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Munni Lal – Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. – Respondent
WRIT -B No. -6556 of 1984
Decided On : 06-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V.K. Rai, Dr Vinod K Rai, Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, S.Rai, U.K. Rai, V.K. Rai
For the Respondent: Ram Jitan Tewari, Anwar Khan, Dhananjai Misra, Harish Chandra Dwivedi, Jeetan Tiwari, S.C.

Title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be filed within a reasonable time; excessive delays without sufficient cause render such objections inadmissible.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 5 and 9A(2) - Limitation - Title objection filed after 9 years dismissed as time-barred - Remand order by Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside for failing to consider delay and existing findings - Basic year entry maintained. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 15)

(B) Limitation - The provisions of the Limitation Act apply to consolidation proceedings, but objections must be filed within a reasonable time and cannot be entertained at any stage without sufficient cause. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involves a plot recorded in the name of Udit Narayan and others, with a title objection filed by respondent no.2 after a significant delay, which was initially dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation later remanded the case for a fresh decision on the title objection.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the title objection was excessive and that the Deputy Director's remand order was not justified, leading to the maintenance of the basic year entry.

Issues: The main issues were whether the title objection was time-barred and whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted appropriately in remanding the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the title objection was rightly dismissed due to inordinate delay and that the Deputy Director's remand order was improper as it failed to consider the established facts and limitations.

Result: Writ petition stands allowed; the basic year entry of the plot in question is hereby maintained.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Dr. Vinod K Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2/2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot No. 499Ba area 1 bigha 10 biswa 8 dhur situated in Village Makanpur, Pargana Bhadohi, District Varanasi. In the basic year entry khatauni, the afoementioned plot was recorded in the name of Udit Narayan by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9.12.1965. The name of Sarabjeet and Lalta were also recorded as co-tenure holders over the land in dispute and area of plot No. 499/2 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa and area of plot No. 499/3 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa 10 dhur. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9.12.1965, C.H. Form 11 was accordingly prepared. The aforementioned plot was chak out hence in C.H. Form 23 those plots were recorded in the name of Udit Narayn, Sarabjeet and Lalta. The bhoomidhari sanad was accordingly issued in favour of Udit Narayan, Sarabjeet and Lalta. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 4.10.1968, the nature of the land was recorded as bhoomidhari instead of sirdari. Sarabjeet died accordingly name of his son Paras Nath was recorded by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 20.6.1968. Udit Narayan, Paras Nath and Lalta transferred the aforementioned plot to petitioner through sale deed accordingly name of petitioner was recorded as bhoomidhar after expunging the name of Udit Narayan and others vide order dated 14.10.1968. Respondent no.2, Jay Murat filed an objection on 20.8.1974 under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act along with an application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay of about 9 years claiming himself to be sole bhoomidhar of the plot in question, as such, it has been prayed that name of petitioner be expunged from the revenue records. The date of the knowledge in the application for condonation of delay mentioned by respondent no.2 was 16.8.1974. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.8.1974 dismissed the aforementioned objection filed by respondent no.2. An appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.2 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.8.1974 which was registered as appeal No. 8704. Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 25.2.1975 dismissed the appeal affirming the order of Consolidation Officer by which the objection filed by respondent no.2 was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Respondent no.2 filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as revision No. 383/1072/12902. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.1.1984 allowed the revision set aside the appellate order dated 25.2.1975, order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.8.1974 and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the impugned orders dated 25.1.1984 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, 25.2.1975 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 28.8.1974 passed by Consolidation Officer.

3. This Court vide order dated 28.9.1984 admitted the writ petition and granted interim order staying the operation of the impugned revisional order dated 25.1.1984 passed by respondent no.1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.9.1984, passed by this Court parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that publication under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act was made on 17.2.1966 but the title objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by respondent no.2 on 20.8.1974, as such, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top