Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
B.S. Verma, J.
Sunil Kumar and another - Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar and others – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2160 of 2001
Decided on : 08-05-2013
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. M.S.Tyagi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Karan Anand, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for intervener.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the alleged adoption deed must be proved by independent and cogent evidence, and the adoption must be acted upon to establish rightful ownership.
Headnote:
certiorari - consolidation of holdings - Section 9A(2), Section 11(1), Section 48(1), Section 12 - The court discussed the Consolidation of Holdings Act and its sections, including Section 9A(2) regarding objections, Section 11(1) regarding appeals, Section 48(1) regarding revisions, and Section 12 regarding mutation of names in revenue records.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of land in a consolidation operation. The petitioners sought to quash the judgment and orders dismissing their objections and appeals regarding the mutation of names in revenue records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged adoption deed was not proved by independent and cogent evidence, and the alleged adoption was never acted upon during the lifetime of the adopter or the adopted son. The court also noted that the possession of the petitioner on the land was proved, and the auction proceedings had attained finality.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the alleged adoption deed and the rightful ownership of the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alleged adoption deed was not proved by independent and cogent evidence, and the alleged adoption was never acted upon. The court also emphasized the finality of the auction proceedings and the petitioner's possession of the land.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, dismissed the application for mutation by the respondent, and allowed the petitioner's application for mutation.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 4-9-1998 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) in Revision Nos. 262 Gopi and others Vs. Atar Singh and others and Revision No. 263, Sunil Kumar and others Vs. Atar Singh and others, whereby both the revisions were dismissed. The petitioners have also assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 12-6-1995 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar(Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and the order dated 23-2-1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer (Annexure-8 to the petition).
2. By the order dated 23-2-1994, the Consolidation Officer Roorkee allowed the objection filed by respondent no. 4 Atar Singh and expunged the name of Baldei wife of Raghubir Singh Daughter of late Sri Amar Singh from Khata No. 115 of village Raisi, on the basis of adoption deed. The Consolidation Officer at the same time dismissed the objections filed by Satpal son of Asha Ram and Sunil Kumar son of Atma Ram as well as the objection of Harbansh and Gopi. By the order dated 12-6-1995, the Appeal Nos. 187 Gopi and others Vs. Atar Singh and others and Appeal NO. 188 Sunil Kumar and others Vs. Atar Sigh and others, preferred against the order of the Consolidation Officer were dismissed by the SOC. Further aggrieved by the judgment and order revision was preferred by the petitioner before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The D.D.C. dismissed the revision vide order dated 4-9-1998.
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioners are that the predecessor of the respondent no. 4 Atar Singh as well as respondent nos. 5 to 13 namely Sobha had two sons, namely, Ganga Sahay who had died in the year 1958, and Amar Singh, who had died in the year 1971. Ganga Sahay left behind him three sons, i.e. Phullu, Bishan and Hargyan as his legal heirs. Phullu died in the year 1978. Respondent no. 4 Atar Singh is the son of Phullu. On the other side, Kala and Baldei were the son and daughter of Amar Singh. Kala is alleged to have died during the life time of late Amar Singh. Late Baldei, daughter of Amar Singh left behind her two sons-Gopi (respondent no. 9 herein) and Harbansh. Harbansh had four sons Mange Ram, Boby, Raju and Sanjay. So far as the pedigree of the contesting parties is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties.
4. It is alleged by the petitioners that Amar Singh had died in the year 1971 and his only son Kala had died during his life time, therefore, the only surviving legal heir of Amar Singh was Baldei, whose name was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1972 in place of late Amar Singh by the Supervisor Kanungo.
5. It is further alleged by the petitioners that Ganga Sahay the other son of late Sobha and brother of Amar Singh died in the year 1958 and after his death, the land in question of Khata No. 115 was mutated in the name of Fullu, Bishan and Hargyan, who are sons of Ganga Sahay and this fact is not disputed between the parties. It is also not disputed that in place of late Amar Singh, the land in question was recorded in the name of his daughter Baldei in the revenue record.
6. The consolidation operations in village Raisi, district Haridwar started in the year 1990. On the basis of basic year Khatauni, Form CH 5 was issued in the name of Smt. Baldei to the extent of half share in the land in question. Objections under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act ( for short the Act) was filed on 28-5-1990 by respondent no. 4-Atar Singh, inter alia on the ground that the father of the objector, Phullu was adopted by his uncle Amar Singh, during his life time, therefore, the name of Baldei, daughter of Amar Singh, which was recorded by Supervisor Kanungo on PA-11 after the death of late Amar Singh be expunged and it was prayed that the name of objector be ent
