Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Ram Singh – Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. – Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 2634 of 1986
Decided On : 18-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.D.Pathak, A.S. Dubey, Rakesh Pathak
For the Respondent: G.N.Verma, S.C., V.S. Kushwaha

The court affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Sections 9A(2), 11(1), and 48(1) - Dispute over land share - Petitioner and respondent no.3 both claimed shares in land purchased via a sale deed dated 1.8.1966 - Consolidation Officer awarded 1/2 share each, but Settlement Officer later awarded 1/4 to petitioner and 3/4 to respondent no.3 - Court found that the appellate and revisional orders were based on misconceived grounds and not proper exercise of jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involved khata No.119 in village-Gongaband, where both parties claimed shares based on a sale deed from 1966. The Consolidation Officer initially awarded equal shares, but subsequent appeals altered this decision.

Findings of Court:
The appellate and revisional orders were set aside, affirming the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares.

Issues: The main issues were the proper interpretation of the sale deed regarding share allocation and the validity of relying on abated proceedings in determining shares.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the findings of the Consolidation Officer were justified and that reliance on abated proceedings was improper in title disputes.

Result: Writ petition allowed; orders of Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. V.P. Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the substituted contesting respondent no.3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to khata No.119 situated in village-Gongaband, Pargana-Kheragarh, District-Agra. One Mst. Phoola who was recorded tenure holder of the plot in question had executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner and respondent no.3 on 1.8.1966. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed dated 1.8.1966 petitioner and respondent no.3 came in possession over the same as well as both of them were recorded in the mutation proceeding initiated by them on the basis of registered sale deed dated 1.8.1966. In the basic year of consolidation operation, petitioner and respondent no.3 were recorded over the plot in question. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") for partition of his 1/2 share. Respondent no.3 claimed 3/4 share in the plot in dispute. The objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was registered before the Consolidation Officer as Case No.809-810/ 428. Consolidation Officer framed issues in the aforementioned title objection about the share of the parties in the disputed plot. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidences in support of their case. Consolidation Officer after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties decided the objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act Act vide order dated 12.6.1984 holding that the petitioner and respondent no.3 shall be entitled to 1/2 share each and khata No.119 shall be partitioned between petitioner and respondent no.3 accordingly. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 12.6.1984, appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.3, which was registered as Appeal No.293 of 1984. Settlement Officer of Consolidation heard the parties and vide order dated 27.9.1984 allowed the appeal and held that the petitioner will be entitled to 1/4 share and respondent no.3 shall be entitled to 3/4 share. The petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 27.9.1984 by way of revision under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Direction of Consolidation, Agra which was registered as Revision No.50. Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties dismissed the revision vide order dated 1.11.1985, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the revisional order dated 1.11.1985 and appellate order dated 27.9.1984.

3. This Court vide order dated 6.2.1986 admitted the writ petition and granted interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioner from his existing chaks. This Court vide subsequent order dated 11.5.1987 modified the interim order dated 6.2.1986 to the extent that parties to the writ petition shall maintain status quo with regard to their possession over the land in dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 filed by the petitioner for partition of 1/2 share was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of evidence on record giving 1/2 share each to the petitioner as well as contesting respondent no.3. He further submitted that in the sale deed executed by Phoola in favour of petitioner as well as respondent no.3 on 1.8.1966, the share has not been defined, as such, both parties will be entitled to 1/2 share each. He next submitted that the Consolidation Officer has recorded finding of fact that both parties will be entitled to 1/2 share in the plot in dispute. He next submitted that the evidence relied upon by the contesting respondent no.3 in the proceeding under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (her