Pet it ioner v. St at e of Ut t arakhand Ot hers

Ms. Anj ali Bhar gava, Advocat e, for t he respondent no. 2. J U D G M E N T H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. Pet it ioner has challenged j udgm ent and order dat ed 7.4.2025, passed by Deput y Direct or of Consolidat ion/ Collect or, Haridwar in Revision No. 55/ 23- 24, whereby nam e of respondent no. 3 ( Rihana) was direct ed t o be m ut at ed in respect of Chak No. 82 and 83 sit uat e in Village Makhanpur and Chak No. 59 sit uat e in Village Shahpur, in place of her m ot her, lat e Mrs. Jait oon. The said j udgm ent was rendered in proceedings under Sect ion 48 of U.P. Consolidat ion of Holdings Act , 1953 read wit h Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidat ion of Holdings Rules, 1954. I n t he im pugned j udgm ent , Deput y Direct or of Consolidat ion has referred t o t he j udgm ent of coordinat e Bench of t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2584 of 2007, for m ut at ing t he nam e of respondent no. 3 in place of her lat e m ot her. Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2584 of 2007 was filed by respondent no. 3 ( Ms. Rihana) , in which a finding was ret urned by coordinat e Bench t hat aft er deat h of her m ot her, Ms. Rihana would succeed t o t he int erest of her m ot her in t he land in quest ion. Since pet it ioner had also st aked 1 claim over t he land belonging t o lat e Jait oon ( m ot her of respondent no. 3) , t herefore, coordinat e Bench considered and discussed t he rival claim s m ade by pet it ioner and Ms. Rihana. Relevant ext ract of t he j udgm ent rendered in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2584 of 2007 is reproduced below: “ According t o Sub- clause ( b) , on it s sim ple reading, on a devolvem ent of right on a widow on t he deat h of her husband and if she dies, t hen t he propert y would revert back t o t he nearest surviving heirs, such as being heir provided under Sect ion 171 “ of last m ale bhum idhar or asam i” . On considerat ion of t he aforesaid provision, in t he case at hand, t he last m ale bhum idhar would be t he lat e husband of t he fem ale bhum idhar Jait oon, who had died and surviving heir of Jait oon as classified under Sect ion 171 would be t he pet it ioner, i.e. t he m arried daught er given under Clause ( g) of Sect ion 171. i.e. nephew. Over I n t hat view of t he m at t er, since t he respondent claim s him self t o be t he son of Yasheen, he claim s t hat t he propert y would devolved upon him , being t he son of t he brot her, t he chronology of succession which has chanced is t hat aft er deat h of Khalil Ahem ed, t he husband of Jait oon, she becam e bhum idhar under Sect ion 171 as succeeding as widow of Bhum idhar and if by im plicat ion of Sub- sect ion ( b) of Sect ion 172, t he brot her’s son will not fall t o be wit hin t he class of heir cont em plat ed eit her under Sect ions 171 or 172. t he Thus, respondent who got him self recorded on t he basis of t he im pugned order, since does not fall t o be wit hin t he class of succession of heir t o be succeeding under Sect ions 171 and 172 of t he Act has got no right what soever.”

2. The aforesaid j udgm ent , rendered coordinat e Bench of t his Court was challenged by filing SLP, which was dism issed by Apex Court on 22.10.2018. 2 Aft er t he det erm inat ion of right s m ade by coordinat e Bench, pet it ioner cannot claim any right qua t he land which belonged t o lat e Mrs. Jait oon. Thus t he grievance raised by t he pet it ioner against t he j udgm ent of Deput y Direct or of Consolidat ion, which sim ply direct s t o record t he nam e of Rihana ( daught er of lat e Jait oon) in t he revenue records, is unfounded.

3. Learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat respondent no. 3 never m oved applicat ion under Sect ion 9A( 2) of U.P. Consolidat ion of Holdings Act and no new right s can be creat ed under t he provision cont ained in Rule 109- A of t he 1954 Rules read wit h Sect ion 52( 2) of U.P. Consolidat ion of Holdings Act .

4. Learned St at e Counsel point s out t hat Consolidat ion Officer passed an order in proceedings under Sect ion 9A( 2) in favour of pet it ioner, which was challenged by respondent no. 3 in an appeal under Sect ion 11( 1) of t he aforesaid Act , which was dism issed. Orders passed in said proceedings were t hereaft er challenged by respondent no. 3 in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2584 of 2007, which was decided in her favour. Thus he subm it s t hat Deput y Direct or of Consolidat ion was j ust ified in giving effect t o t he det erm inat ion m ade by coordinat e Bench of t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2584 of 2007.

5. Since Ms. Rihana ( respondent no. 3 herein) acquired right in t he propert y of Mrs. Jait oon by virt ue of being her daught er, which fruct ified upon deat h of her m ot her, t herefore t he cont ent ion put fort h by learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner t hat Ms. Rihana do not have any right in t he propert y of her m ot her, is m isconceived 3 and not accept able. I n fact , pet it ioner does not have any right in t he propert y left behind by t he m ot her of Ms. Rihana. Thus t he challenge t hrown by pet it ioner t o t he j udgm ent rendered by Revisional Court is wit hout any subst ance.

6. I n such view of t he m at t er, t here is no scope int erference wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent . Writ pet it ion t hus fails and is dism issed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 8 .5 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c5060 2ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806 ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 4