The court ruled that claims of joint ownership must be substantiated with evidence, and the applicability of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars civil court jurisdiction in consolidation matters.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri R.S. Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26.7.1995 passed by opposite party no.1 contained in Annexure.6 and judgment and order dated 19.6.1997 passed by opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure No.11.

3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner’s father Buddhu was granted a patta on 10.06.1947 by Raja Ayodhya Estate in respect of Plot No. 231/90, area 5 bigha. His name was duly recorded in the revenue records. After Buddhu’s death in 1976, the petitioner being his sole heir was mutated in the revenue records and is in peaceful possession of the land.

4. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed a suit under Section 229-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act claiming co-bhumidhari rights, alleging that Buddhu had acquired the land in a representative capacity as Karta of the joint Hindu family.

5. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit on 21.02.1986 holding that the claim was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as no objection was filed during consolidation. The land was acquired by Buddhu individually, not from joint family funds.

6. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad allowed the appeal on 26.07.1995, setting aside trial court judgment, holding that Section 49 not applicable.

7. Second Appeal filed before the Board of Revenue, U.P. was dismissed on 19.06.1997, affirming Commissioner’s order.

8. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that meanwhile, opposite parties nos. 3 & 4 fraudulently procured a forged compromise before the Naib Tehsildar in 1991 to get their names entered in revenue records. This was set aside upon petitioner’s application, and their subsequent appeals and revisions were dismissed.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that bar of Section 49 has been ignored since no objection was raised during consolidation, the suit under Section 229-B is barred.

10. It is further submitted that the land was acquired by Buddhu personally. No evidence has been produced by opposite parties to prove joint family acquisition.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents never objected during Buddhu’s lifetime or at the time of mutation after his death. Their reliance on a forged compromise shows malafides.

12. It is submitted that the impugned orders are arbitrary and non speaking. The Commissioner and Board of Revenue reversed a well- reasoned trial court judgment without discussing findings or considering documentary evidence such as the patta, mutation entries, and revenue records.

13. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are arbitrary, violative of Section 49 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

14. In support of the submission advanced, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments, which are as under :-

(i) Narender Singh and others v. Jai Bhgwan and others reported in JT 2004 (10) SC 345.

(ii) Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey and others reported in 1990 RD SC 439.

(iii) Ram Briksha and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in 2017(6) ADJ 356.

(iv) Raghubar Dayal and another v. D.D.C./ Addl. D.M., Sitapur reported in 2017 (134) RD 7.

(v) Sriram and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others report