High Court

Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the State respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. In pursuance of the order dated 03.12.2024, counsel for the petitioner has rectified the array of parties. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question belong to one Smt. Haseena. Upon her death, the said property was succeeded by her nephew- Munawar Ali (Bhanja). Sri Munawar sold the said property in favour of the petitioner by means of the sale deed dated 10.02.1998. While on one hand, the property is being claimed by the petitioner through Munawar and, on the other hand, the private respondent no.4 Lalta Prasad also moved an application claiming rights on the property of Haseena on the basis of Will said to have been executed on 08.06.1996. Sri Lalta Prasad also moved an application for getting his name mutated under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H Act and the same came to be allowed by the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 10.02.1998. This order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by Munawar Ali and the petitioner by filing an appeal before the S.O.C while allowing the said appeal vide its order dated 19.04.2017 find out that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were totally without jurisdiction. Vide the same order the S.O.C find out that since there were no legal heir of Smt. Haseena, hence, it direct the land in question to be vested with the State. The petitioner along with Munawar Ali further escalated the matter and filed a revision before the D.D.C. One another revision was also filed by Lalta Prasad and as such both the revisions were heard together and dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2024. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the three orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities are being challenged by the petitioner who is assignee of Munawar Ali who claimed to be nephew (Bhanja) of Smt. Haseena. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasoning adopted by the two consolidation authorities are not in accordance with law. In case, if the notification had been made in terms of Section 52 of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 the parties could have been relegated to get their rights adjudicated in the revenue courts. However, the reasoning taken by the S.O.C as well as D.D.C that the C.O does not have jurisdiction was incorrect and for the aforesaid reasons the order by virtue of the land has been vested with the State is incorrect. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it has not been indicated in the entire petition as to how Munawar Ali claimed himself to be nephew of Smt Haseena, it will be relevant to mention that the petitioner has referred to Annexure no.1 to indicate that the name of Munawar Ali was incorporated as per the order dated 2.01.1998 however, a copy of the order has not been brought on record. On the aforesaid gain significance for the reason that it is admitted case that the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H Act, 1953 was on 14.06.1997 in absence of the aforesaid details as mentioned above, apparently, it would indicate that the order mutation said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 27.01.1998 would be after notification under Section 52 which was made on 14.06.1997. The S.O.C while passing the order impugned dated 19.04.2017 clearly recorded a finding that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were a farce. However, this is observed in context with the proceedings which were initiated by Lalta Prasad who claim rights in the property of Haseena on the basis of Will but the fact remains that in the file before Consolidation Officer neither notices were issued nor there were any order sheet except the final order which was passed which gave reasonable support to the S.O.C to come to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by the Consolidation Officer were fraudulent in nature as no such new proceedings could have been entered post the notification dated 14.06.1997. It is in this context that the claim of Lalta Prasad and Munawar was turned down and the land was vested in the State. Even as far as mutation order in favour of Munawar is concerned, the same was also is post dated of notification under Section 52 i.e. 14.06.1997. Since, there is no date of death of Haseena on record and there is no application indicating that when Munawar had applied for the mutation after death of Haseena and a copy of the order by which the mutation was made in favour of Munawar and thereafter noticing that Munawar has sold the property to the petitioner does not give credence to any valid transfer/assignee of rights, in so far as the property of Haseena is concerned, no document has been brought on record to indicate that prior to the date of notification under Section 52, the name of Munawar was recorded. Accordingly, all that transpires from the record is that the name of Haseena continued to remain in the revenue record maintained even by the consolidation authorities and no application from the side of Munawar was brought on record. Since the basic right as to how Munawar claims to be nephew and no evidence/material was placed on record in this regard nor established the relationship. Moreover, whether the nephew Munawar would fall in the preferential order of heirs as indicated under Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act, without being established till then the claim of the petitioner who is an assignee of Munawar cannot be considered. The findings recorded by the S.O.C as well as the D.D.C is based on proper appreciation of evidence, hence this Court does not find any merit in the petition and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Harshita

Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the State respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. In pursuance of the order dated 03.12.2024, counsel for the petitioner has rectified the array of parties. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question belong to one Smt. Haseena. Upon her death, the said property was succeeded by her nephew- Munawar Ali (Bhanja). Sri Munawar sold the said property in favour of the petitioner by means of the sale deed dated 10.02.1998. While on one hand, the property is being claimed by the petitioner through Munawar and, on the other hand, the private respondent no.4 Lalta Prasad also moved an application claiming rights on the property of Haseena on the basis of Will said to have been executed on 08.06.1996. Sri Lalta Prasad also moved an application for getting his name mutated under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H Act and the same came to be allowed by the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 10.02.1998. This order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by Munawar Ali and the petitioner by filing an appeal before the S.O.C while allowing the said appeal vide its order dated 19.04.2017 find out that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were totally without jurisdiction. Vide the same order the S.O.C find out that since there were no legal heir of Smt. Haseena, hence, it direct the land in question to be vested with the State. The petitioner along with Munawar Ali further escalated the matter and filed a revision before the D.D.C. One another revision was also filed by Lalta Prasad and as such both the revisions were heard together and dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2024. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the three orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities are being challenged by the petitioner who is assignee of Munawar Ali who claimed to be nephew (Bhanja) of Smt. Haseena. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasoning adopted by the two consolidation authorities are not in accordance with law. In case, if the notification had been made in terms of Section 52 of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 the parties could have been relegated to get their rights adjudicated in the revenue courts. However, the reasoning taken by the S.O.C as well as D.D.C that the C.O does not have jurisdiction was incorrect and for the aforesaid reasons the order by virtue of the land has been vested with the State is incorrect. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it has not been indicated in the entire petition as to how Munawar Ali claimed himself to be nephew of Smt Haseena, it will be relevant to mention that the petitioner has referred to Annexure no.1 to indicate that the name of Munawar Ali was incorporated as per the order dated 2.01.1998 however, a copy of the order has not been brought on record. On the aforesaid gain significance for the reason that it is admitted case that the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H Act, 1953 was on 14.06.1997 in absence of the aforesaid details as mentioned above, apparently, it would indicate that the order mutation said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 27.01.1998 would be after notification under Section 52 which was made on 14.06.1997. The S.O.C while passing the order impugned dated 19.04.2017 clearly recorded a finding that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were a farce. However, this is observed in context with the proceedings which were initiated by Lalta Prasad who claim rights in the property of Haseena on the basis of Will but the fact remains that in the file before Consolidation Officer neither notices were issued nor there were any order sheet except the final order which was passed which gave reasonable support to the S.O.C to come to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by the Consolidation Officer were fraudulent in nature as no such new proceedings could have been entered post the notification dated 14.06.1997. It is in this context that the claim of Lalta Prasad and Munawar was turned down and the land was vested in the State. Even as far as mutation order in favour of Munawar is concerned, the same was also is post dated of notification under Section 52 i.e. 14.06.1997. Since, there is no date of death of Haseena on record and there is no application indicating that when Munawar had applied for the mutation after death of Haseena and a copy of the order by which the mutation was made in favour of Munawar and thereafter noticing that Munawar has sold the property to the petitioner does not give credence to any valid transfer/assignee of rights, in so far as the property of Haseena is concerned, no document has been brought on record to indicate that prior to the date of notification under Section 52, the name of Munawar was recorded. Accordingly, all that transpires from the record is that the name of Haseena continued to remain in the revenue record maintained even by the consolidation authorities and no application from the side of Munawar was brought on record. Since the basic right as to how Munawar claims to be nephew and no evidence/material was placed on record in this regard nor established the relationship. Moreover, whether the nephew Munawar would fall in the preferential order of heirs as indicated under Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act, without being established till then the claim of the petitioner who is an assignee of Munawar cannot be considered. The findings recorded by the S.O.C as well as the D.D.C is based on proper appreciation of evidence, hence this Court does not find any merit in the petition and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Harshita