High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. It has been pointed out that the order dated 18.09.2024 is under challenge in Writ-B no. 1316 of 2024 whereby the revision preferred by the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners has been dismissed. It is also pointed out that against the same order writ petition filed by the successors of the original recorded tenure-holders (Omprakash and Others Vs. DDC, Sitapur and Others) bearing Writ-B No. 1328 of 2024 is also listed before the Court at Serial No. 126 in the list of fresh cases which has been filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners namely Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan. Since both the petitions arises out of the same order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence, both the petitions are being connected. The Writ Petition No. 1316 (Writ-B) of 2024 shall be treated as the leading petition. Notice in both the petitions on behalf of the State-respondents has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in both the petitions on caveat and has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially the property in question belonged to one Sri Jai Jai Ram. He was survived by his sons, however, the dispute in question relates to the share of Ram Prasad who is reported to have died issue-less. The dispute has further been narrowed to Khata Nos. 160 which was initially recorded in the name of Ram Prasad and Sri Bacchu Lal and Khata No. 161 which was recorded in the name of Ram Prasad and Manohar. For the ease of convenience, the pedigree has been filed by the petitioner at running page 17 of the paper-book. It is urged that after the death of Ram Prasad, his share in the aforesaid two Khatas devolved on his nephews namely Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan. It is further the case of the petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 of 2024 that the said nephews namely Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan sold some part of their land in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 of 2024 in the year 1976 by different sale deeds. It is further urged that at the behest of Bacchu Lal and Manohar, systematic proceedings were initiated which also included a suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed by Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan in favour of the predecessors-in- interest of the present petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 of 2024. It has been pointed out that the said suit was withdrawn by Bacchu Lal and Manohar and as such in so far as the title as well as the possession of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners is concerned, the same was within the knowledge as well as tacitly accepted by Bacchu Lal and Manohar. It is also urged that the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners was duly recorded in mutation proceedings and at that given point of time, there was an opposition at the behest of the contesting respondents Bacchu Lal and Manohar. Thereafter they entered into a compromise and the mutation proceedings were also given a quietus in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 (Writ-B) of 2024. It has also been pointed out that the main dispute arose upon the commencement of the consolidation operations wherein objections were filed under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by Bacchu Lal and Manohar wherein for the first time a plea was raised that the names of Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan were incorrectly incorporated as they could not have inherited the share of Ram Prasad since the brothers of Ram Prasad namely Ram Rahim and Ram Dayal who were alive at that given point of time. It is urged that the Consolidation Officer ruled in favour of the present petitioners. This was assailed by the contesting respondents who also ruled in favour of the petitioners and thereafter a revision was preferred which was further taken forward in a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P. No. 433 (Consolidation) of 1995 (Kannauji Lal and Others Vs. DDC and Others). It is also pointed out that the said writ petition came to be allowed on 31.10.2012 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sitapur with a direction to re-assess the matter after ascertaining the fact that at the time of death of Ram Prasad whether his two brothers namely Ram Raheem and Ram Dayal were alive or not and for the aforesaid purpose opportunity was granted to the parties concerned to lead evidence. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the remand, none of the parties i.e. the petitioners or the contesting respondents filed filed any fresh evidence, however, the findings which were already recorded and had been tacitly accepted, were set aside and on the same facts and evidence which was existing on the records, different findings have been recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The pith and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of any new evidence, the two courts were not justified in taking a different view while the matter including the impact of the earlier litigation in between the parties had already been considered and those facts were not disputed. Thus, the submission is that the findings recorded are against the weight of material and evidence on record. The matter requires consideration. Let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks from today. It shall be open for the private respondents to file their counter affidavit in the meantime. Issue notice to the private respondents except respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 who are represented by Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel. Steps to be taken within a week. List this matter on 10th February, 2025 along with Writ Petition No. 1328 (Writ-B) of 2024 showing the name of Sri Rakesh Srivastava, as counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5. As an interim measure, it is provided that none of the parties shall alienate the property or create any third party rights or change the spot position. Order Date :- 3.1.2025/Asheesh/-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. It has been pointed out that the order dated 18.09.2024 is under challenge in Writ-B no. 1316 of 2024 whereby the revision preferred by the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners has been dismissed. It is also pointed out that against the same order writ petition filed by the successors of the original recorded tenure-holders (Omprakash and Others Vs. DDC, Sitapur and Others) bearing Writ-B No. 1328 of 2024 is also listed before the Court at Serial No. 126 in the list of fresh cases which has been filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners namely Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan. Since both the petitions arises out of the same order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence, both the petitions are being connected. The Writ Petition No. 1316 (Writ-B) of 2024 shall be treated as the leading petition. Notice in both the petitions on behalf of the State-respondents has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in both the petitions on caveat and has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially the property in question belonged to one Sri Jai Jai Ram. He was survived by his sons, however, the dispute in question relates to the share of Ram Prasad who is reported to have died issue-less. The dispute has further been narrowed to Khata Nos. 160 which was initially recorded in the name of Ram Prasad and Sri Bacchu Lal and Khata No. 161 which was recorded in the name of Ram Prasad and Manohar. For the ease of convenience, the pedigree has been filed by the petitioner at running page 17 of the paper-book. It is urged that after the death of Ram Prasad, his share in the aforesaid two Khatas devolved on his nephews namely Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan. It is further the case of the petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 of 2024 that the said nephews namely Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan sold some part of their land in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 of 2024 in the year 1976 by different sale deeds. It is further urged that at the behest of Bacchu Lal and Manohar, systematic proceedings were initiated which also included a suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed by Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan in favour of the predecessors-in- interest of the present petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 of 2024. It has been pointed out that the said suit was withdrawn by Bacchu Lal and Manohar and as such in so far as the title as well as the possession of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners is concerned, the same was within the knowledge as well as tacitly accepted by Bacchu Lal and Manohar. It is also urged that the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners was duly recorded in mutation proceedings and at that given point of time, there was an opposition at the behest of the contesting respondents Bacchu Lal and Manohar. Thereafter they entered into a compromise and the mutation proceedings were also given a quietus in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners of W.P. No. 1316 (Writ-B) of 2024. It has also been pointed out that the main dispute arose upon the commencement of the consolidation operations wherein objections were filed under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by Bacchu Lal and Manohar wherein for the first time a plea was raised that the names of Kali Deen, Badlu, Guftar and Jag Jeevan were incorrectly incorporated as they could not have inherited the share of Ram Prasad since the brothers of Ram Prasad namely Ram Rahim and Ram Dayal who were alive at that given point of time. It is urged that the Consolidation Officer ruled in favour of the present petitioners. This was assailed by the contesting respondents who also ruled in favour of the petitioners and thereafter a revision was preferred which was further taken forward in a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P. No. 433 (Consolidation) of 1995 (Kannauji Lal and Others Vs. DDC and Others). It is also pointed out that the said writ petition came to be allowed on 31.10.2012 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sitapur with a direction to re-assess the matter after ascertaining the fact that at the time of death of Ram Prasad whether his two brothers namely Ram Raheem and Ram Dayal were alive or not and for the aforesaid purpose opportunity was granted to the parties concerned to lead evidence. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the remand, none of the parties i.e. the petitioners or the contesting respondents filed filed any fresh evidence, however, the findings which were already recorded and had been tacitly accepted, were set aside and on the same facts and evidence which was existing on the records, different findings have been recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The pith and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of any new evidence, the two courts were not justified in taking a different view while the matter including the impact of the earlier litigation in between the parties had already been considered and those facts were not disputed. Thus, the submission is that the findings recorded are against the weight of material and evidence on record. The matter requires consideration. Let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks from today. It shall be open for the private respondents to file their counter affidavit in the meantime. Issue notice to the private respondents except respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 who are represented by Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel. Steps to be taken within a week. List this matter on 10th February, 2025 along with Writ Petition No. 1328 (Writ-B) of 2024 showing the name of Sri Rakesh Srivastava, as counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5. As an interim measure, it is provided that none of the parties shall alienate the property or create any third party rights or change the spot position. Order Date :- 3.1.2025/Asheesh/-