Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Bajrangi – Petitioner
Versus
Joint Director Cons. Raebareli – Respondent
Consolidation No. 301 of 1999
Decided On : 05-02-2020
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Section 9-A (2) – Joint Director Consolidation, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, allowed the revision and set-aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 08.03.1990 and maintained the order dated 22.06.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer with observation of correction of records by means of the judgment and order – Held, Petitioners were claiming that land in dispute was acquired by the Joint Hindu Family, therefore initial burden was upon the petitioners to prove that it was acquired from the joint nucleus of the Joint Hindu Family. But the burden could not be discharged by the petitioners and they could not prove that it was purchased from the joint nucleus for the welfare of the family – Judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer passed by the Joint Director Consolidation have rightly been passed in accordance with law after considering the material and evidence on record – Court does not find any illegality or error in the orders – Petition dismissed. (Paras 33 and 34)
Facts of the Case
Petitioners had filed the objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 alleging therein that the land of the alleged Khata No. 414 is their ancestral property. It was earned jointly by three real brothers namely Lachhiman, Bhagwati and Raj Bahadur. Lachhiman was the eldest and Karta of the family therefore his name was recorded. It was submitted that they have 1/3rd share, upon which they are in possession and are cultivating the same. – The opposite parties no. 4 and 5 had also filed their objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Act of 1953 alleging therein that the disputed land was self acquired by Lachhiman from his own income after separation. His brothers have no share in the said land. They have received the said land through a sale deed from Lachhiman and they are in possession after the sale deed and mutation and are Bhumidhar. Accordingly, they denied the rights and title of the petitioners and others and prayed for the rejection of the request for partition and to continue the entry in the name of the opposite parties no. 4 and 5.
Finding of the Court
Petitioners were claiming that land in dispute was acquired by the Joint Hindu Family, therefore initial burden was upon the petitioners to prove that it was acquired from the joint nucleus of the Joint Hindu Family. But the burden could not be discharged by the petitioners and they could not prove that it was purchased from the joint nucleus for the welfare of the family – Judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer passed by the Joint Director Consolidation have rightly been passed in accordance with law after considering the material and evidence on record – Court does not find any illegality or error in the orders.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard, Ms. Navita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 4 and 5.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.03.1999 and 22.06.1987 passed by the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 respectively.
3. The brief facts of the case for adjudication of the case in hand are that the petitioners had filed the objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the Act of 1953) on 16.09.1985 alleging therein that the land of the alleged Khata No. 414 is their ancestral property. It was earned jointly by three real brothers namely Lachhiman, Bhagwati and Raj Bahadur. Lachhiman was the eldest and Karta of the family therefore his name was recorded. It was submitted that they have 1/3rd share, upon which they are in possession and are cultivating the same. They are co-sharers in the aforesaid Khata No. 414 having numbers 1389 and 1045 situated at Gram Chilauli, Pargana Mohandganj, District-Raebareli. The opposite parties no. 4 and 5 had also filed their objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Act of 1953 alleging therein that the disputed land was self acquired by Lachhiman from his own income after separation. His brothers have no share in the said land. They have received the said land through a sale deed from Lachhiman and they are in possession after the sale deed and mutation and are Bhumidhar. Accordingly, they denied the rights and title of the petitioners and others and prayed for the rejection of the request for partition and to continue the entry in the name of the opposite parties no. 4 and 5.
4. The statement of witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners Lal Pratap Singh as PW-1 on 24.12.1995, Ram Baran Singh as PW-2 on 27.01.1986 and Bajrangi as PW-3 on 23.04.1986 were recorded. On behalf of the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 also three witnesses were examined namely Devi as DW-1 on 27.05.1986, Kodau as DW-2 on 01.07.1986 and Satya Narain as DW-3 on 23.02.1987. The consolidation officer after hearing the parties and considering the evidence and records rejected the objections of the petitioners and provided that it shall remain entered in the name of Satya Narain etc. by means of the order dated 22.06.1987. The petitioners preferred an appeal number 1558/893/616/378 under Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1953 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Raebareli. He, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence available on record, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dated 22.06.1987 by means of the judgment and order dated 08.03.1990. It was further provided that in Khata No. 414 the names of the petitioners be also recorded alongwith the opposite parties no. 4 and 5.
5. Being aggrieved the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 preferred a Revision No. 930/301 under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 before the Joint Director Consolidation. The Joint Director Consolidation, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, allowed the revision and set-aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 08.03.1990 and maintained the order dated 22.06.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer with observation of correction of records by means of the judgment and order dated 11.03.1999. Hence the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 11.03.1999 and 22.06.1987.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the grandfather of the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 and great grandfather of the petitioners nos. 1/2 and 1/3 namely Lala had three sons; Lachhiman, Bhagwati and Raj Bahadur. After death of Lala, all the three sons of Lala inherited the property jointly however Lachhiman was the karta of the family. He, with the intention that all property
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
