Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Ali Yaar Khan And 6 Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mohammad Mateen And Anr. - Respondent
Writ B No.1014 of 2002
Decided on : 18-04-2024
For the Appellant : Shafiq Mirza, Humayun Mirza, Syed Ahmad Jamal,Vyas Narayan Shukla
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Amar Nath Dubey, Anil K.Tripathi, Krishna Dutt Tripathi, Rajesh Yadav, Rama Raman Mishra, Shesh Ram Mishra, Shiv Pal Singh
The court emphasized that succession rights must be established through concrete evidence, rejecting claims based on insufficient proof.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4 and 11(1) - Writ petition for quashing revisional order - Petitioners claim rights as successors of Late Naseera Bibi, daughter of Late Maddu Khan, against claims by Respondent No.1, who asserts to be the son of Late Riyasat Khan - The Revisional Court's findings were based on insufficient evidence, leading to a flawed conclusion regarding succession rights. (Paras 4, 10, 18, 24)
(B) Evidence - The court emphasized that mere residency and affidavits do not establish lineage or succession rights without corroborating evidence. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, grandsons of Late Naseera Bibi, challenge a revisional order favoring Respondent No.1, who claims to be the grandson of Late Riyasat Khan, based on insufficient evidence. The petitioners argue that their grandmother was in continuous possession of the disputed land. (Paras 5, 10, 18)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Revisional Court's conclusions lacked evidentiary support, particularly regarding the lineage of Respondent No.1, and thus quashed the revisional order. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of Respondent No.1's claim to succession and the evidentiary basis for the Revisional Court's decision. (Paras 10, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the findings of the Revisional Court were conjectural and not supported by evidence, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof for establishing succession rights. (Paras 23, 24)
Result: The impugned revisional order dated 26.11.2002 is hereby quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the Basic Year Khatauni, which is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he does not want to file any objection to the same.
4. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 26.11.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are grand son of Late Naseera Bibi who was daughter of Late Maddu Khan, the recorded tenure holder on Khata No.129.
6. It is further submitted that Maddu Khan had two children namely Naseera Bibi i.e. the grand mother of the present petitioners and Riyasat Khan.
7. It is further submitted that Riyasat Khan had left India in the year 1942 and started residing in Burma and he was issue-less. In the Basic Year Khatauni Khata No.129 which is shown to be entered in the name of Riyasat Khan S/o Late Maddu Khan and in possession of Naseera Bibi i.e. the grand-mother of the petitioners.
8. It is further submitted that Riyasat Khan left India in the year 1942 and never came back. The grand mother of the petitioners has been in continuous possession of the Khata No.129, which also recorded so in the basic year entry in Khatauni.
9. It is further submitted that the consolidation proceedings were initiated and notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953') was issued and after one and half years of publication under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 father of Respondent No.1 namely Mohsin had raised an objection and claimed that being a son of Riyasat Khan he is rightful heir for the land bearing Khata No.129. The matter was decided by the consolidation officer in favour of the father of the Respondent No.1. Against which the petitioners had preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which was allowed by judgement and order dated 03.10.1978.
10. It is further submitted that against the appellate order two revisions were filed, one by Respondent No.1 Mohd. Mateen and another by some third party namely Taiyab Khan. The Revisional Court had decided the matter by allowing the Revision in favour of the Respondent No.1 by re-appreciating/miss-appreciating the evidence and gave a finding on frivolous grounds in favour of the Respondent No.1 and quashed the order passed in the appeal in favour of the petitioners.
11. It is further submitted that the revision was allowed on the basis that the Respondent No.1 was the son of Mohsin Khan but without there being any evidence that Mohsin Khan was the son of Late Riyasat Khan as claimed by Respondent No.1 that he is the grandson of Late Riyasat Khan being a son of Mohsin Khan.
12. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition the Petitioner No.5 Shafique Khan had expired and in his place his legal heirs have been substituted i.e. 5/1 to 5/7. During the pendency of the writ petition Respondent No.1 has also expired.
13. It is further submitted that during the pendency and despite the order of status quo dated 13.12.2002 passed by this Court, Mohd. Mateen i.e. Respondent No.1 had sold the property to one Mohd Arman, who has also been made party as Respondent No.3 in the present writ petition by order dated 25.4.2022 by making an observation as follows:
"Though the heirs of the deceased-respondent No.1 shall be brought on record, but the contest is primarily between the petitioner and the newly impleaded respondent No.3, who is in succession interest of the respondent No.1. Consequently, no adjournment or out of station or illness slip shall be entertained on behalf
