Back
2000(3) Supreme 174
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Sheo Nand & Ors. -Appellants
versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1268 of 1992
Decided on 3-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : T.N. Singh, B.M. Sharma, (C.L. Sahu), Advocate (NP), S.N. Singh, B.S. Jain, R.D. Rathore, Goodwill Indeever, Advocates.
Held : Section 11C casts a duty on the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director to record the property in the name of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government or any other local body or authority if, during the course of the consolidation proceedings, they notice that the property really belonged to any of them notwithstanding that they had not filed any objection, appeal or revision under the Act. This is the statutory duty of the authorities functioning under the Act and they cannot act otherwise. If, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, during the course of the hearing of revision, came to the conclusion that the claim of the appellants was not correct or that the property which originally belonged to Jethu could not be given to his sister, Smt. Ganeshia, who, as a matter of fact, was found to be not his sister, the property had to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha in whom it would vest in the absence of any lawful claimant. (Para 3)
The Deputy Director of Consolidation on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record had come to the conclusion that Jethu who was not heard of for more than 7 years and had consequently died a civil death, had not left any heir who could be recorded as tenure-holders of those plots in his place. The property would, therefore, vest in the Gaon Sabha by Escheat. The decision of the Deputy Director was challenged before the High Court and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the provisions of Section 11-C were introduced in the principal Act. Consequently, it was the duty of the High Court to give effect to those provisions at the time of the final decision of the Writ Petition. As pointed out above, it is the statutory duty of all the authorities functioning under the Act to give effect to the provisions of Section 11-C of the Act and to record the property as having vested in the Gaon Sabha even if no claim was laid by the Gaon Sabha nor was any petition filed by the Gaon Sabha under the Act. Even though the provisions of Section 11-C were not available to the Deputy Director at the time of the decision of the revision filed by the appellants before him, his order that the property should be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha could be sustained on the basis of the provisions of Section 11-C at the time of hearing of the writ petition and the High Court was, therefore, justified in upholding his order. There is, thus, no error in the judgment of the High Court. (Para 5)
Where on a determination of the rights of the claimants before the Consolidation Authorities it is found that none of the claimants could be held to be the tenure-holder of the property in question which, admittedly, belonged to a third person who was not heard of for more than 7 years and was, therefore, treated as having died a civil death or who, in fact, was dead without leaving any heir, the property would vest in the Gaon Sabha. This is the principle of Escheat. (Para 6)
(ii) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-Section 48-Revisional proceedings-Scope of jurisdiction-Petition claiming Sirdari rights in respect of one village on basis of adverse possession-Deputy Director deciding case relating to three villages and basis of finding that records were fabricated passing orders vesting land in favour of Gaon Sabha-Deputy Director justified in looking into legality of entire proceedings-He did not exceed jurisdiction under Section 48.
Section 48 gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the Revenue Records may be prepared accordingly. Normally, the Deputy Director, in exercise of his powers, is not expected to disturb the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but where the findings are perverse, in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record by the parties or that they are against the weight of evidence, it would be the duty of the Deputy Director to scrutinise the whole case again so as to determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him. In a case, like the present, where the entries in the Revenue record are fictitious or forged or they were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual or other allied statutory provisions, the Deputy Director would have full power under Section 48 to re-appraise or re-evaluate the evidence on record so as to finally determine the rights of the parties by excluding forged and fictitious revenue entries or entries not made in accordance with law. (Paras 19 and 20)
If, therefore, during the course of the hearing of the revision filed by the appellant under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director reopened the whole case and scrutinised the claim of the appellants in respect of two other villages, it could not be said that the Deputy Director exceeded his jurisdiction in any manner. It will be noticed that while scrutinising the evidence on record, the Deputy Director has noticed that the entries were fictitious and in recording some of the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellants, statutory provisions including those contained in U.P. Land Records Manual were not followed. In that situation, the Deputy Director was wholly justified in looking into the legality of the entire proceedings and disposing of the revision in the manner in which he was done. (Para 21)
ORDER
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-The appellants, who had claimed Sirdari rights by adverse possession over different plots in three different villages, were allowed that right only in respect of one plot situated in village Jethupur and their claim in respect of other plots was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the revisional stage under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the Act ) on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence. The Deputy Director, who carefully scrutinised the Revenue Records, filed by the parties, found many of the entries forged and fictitious; many other entries were found to have been made in the Revenue Records without complying with the mandatory requirements set out in the U.P. Land Records Manual. He ultimately came to the conclusion that since the recorded tenure-holder, namely, Jethu @ Madhoo (respondent No. 12) was not available, having died a civil death, his property would vest in the Gram Sabha. The Deputy Director had also negatived the claim of Smt. Ganeshia, alleged sister of Jethu who had also laid claim over the plots belonging to Jethu on the ground that Jethu who was unmarried and consequently had no issue, was not heard of for more than 10 years and had died a civil death and, therefore, the plots which belonged to him would come down to her by inheritance and she was entitled to be recorded as Sirdar of all those plots. Her claim has been negatived on account of the finding that she was not the real sister of Jethu.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two contentions. The first contention is that the Gaon Sabha had not filed any objections under Section 9 of the Act and, therefore, it could not be given the plots which belonged to Jethu and the appellants having been in possession over the plots since long had acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession and were, therefore, entitled to be recorded as such during consolidation proceedings. This claim was negatived by the High Court on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 11-C which were introduced in the Act by U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1974. This Section provides as under :-
"11-C. In the course of hearing of an objection under Section 9-A or an appeal under Section 11, or in proceedings under Section 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government of the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority."
3. This Section casts a duty on the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director to record the property in the name of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government or any other local body or authority if, during the course of the consolidation proceedings, they notice that the property really belonged to any of them notwithstanding that they had not filed any objection, appeal or revision under the Act. This is the statutory duty of the authorities functioning under the Act and they cannot act otherwise. If, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, during the course of the hearing of revision, came to the conclusion that the claim of the appellants was not correct or that the property which originally belonged to Jethu could not be given to his sister, Smt. Ganeshia, who, as a matter of fact, was found to be not his sister, the property had to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha in whom it would vest in the absence of any lawful claimant.
4. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Deputy Director had disposed of the revision prior to the introduction of Section 11-C in the principal Act and, therefore, the plots in question could not be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha unless those plots were claimed by the Gaon
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
