Nanhu Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Nazul)

Present: Mr. M. C. Pande, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devesh Upreti, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. M. S. Tyagi, Counsel for respondent no.4. Mr. B. D. Pande, Counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Hon(cid:146)ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

#1. Both these writ petitions pertain to two orders passed by the authorities in consolidation proceedings in Village Lamera, Tehsil Kichha District Udham Singh Nagar. Under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the (cid:147)Act(cid:148)) a notification was issued on 31.5.1989. Consequently thereafter under the provisions of the Act under which consolidations proceedings were initiated in the village Lamera as first step the authorities had to prepare a document showing as to who are the recorded tenure holder of the particular land. While doing so 2 objections were also invited. Consequently, objection was raised by respondent no. 5 who claims title on two plots of land, which are presently in dispute before this Court, on the basis of two sale deeds executed in his favour in the year 1984 and 1985. Respondent no.4 also raised objection claiming title on the land measuring 8 Bigha 10 Biswa on the basis of registered sale deed executed by Mr. Bed Prakash in whose favour Ghansiram (father of the petitioner) has executed a power of attorney. The matter went before the Consolidation Officer where the dispute was regarding the land (Khasra No. 6) measuring 8 Bigha and 10 Biswa.

#2. Case before the Consolidation Officer was that the land was recorded in the name of Ghansiram (father of the petitioner) who was original tenure holder and he never executed any sale deed or power of attorney in favour of any person. The sale deed and power of attorney on the basis of which rights are being claimed by the respondents as well as by the petitioner in writ petition (m/s) no. 959 of 2012 are forged and fabricated documents. It is further evident that in the revenue records the land is still recorded in his name (Nanhu Singh). Consolidation Officer had therefore to determine the correct ownership of the disputed property and after evaluating the evidence submitted by all the parties it came to the conclusion that Ghansiram was the original tenure holder but on 10.5.1974 by way a sale deed he gave 2 Bigha 2 Biswa of the land in favour of father of Hridyanath namely Shivpujan. Subsequently by way of a sale deed dated 2.4.1973 the remaining 6 Bigha 6 Biswa of land was given to two persons namely Vishwanath Prasad Verma and Amal Prasad. Both Vishwanath 3 Prasad Verma and Amal Prasad gave a sale deed in favour of Hridyanath i.e. respondent no.5 (in writ petition no. (m/s) 644 of 2004) on 3.3.1985 and 1.2.1985. The order dated 27.7.1992 was challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer and rejected the claim of Om Prakash as well as that of Nanhu Singh on

17.5.1994. Against the order dated 17.5.1994 two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that there is no anomaly in the orders of Consolidation Officer and Appellate Authority and determination has rightly been done by the lower authorities. Aggrieved aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed before this Court.

#3. Case of Sri Om Prakash (petitioner in writ petition (m/s) no. 959 of 2004) is that the father of Nanhu Singh Sri Ghansiram who was the original tenure holder had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Sri Bed Prakash on 10.6.1969. Admittedly though this power of attorney is not registered he on the basis of said Power of Attorney executed a sale deed in favour of Om Prakash on 15.2.1973. He claims right on the property on the basis of sale deed which was given to him by Bed Prakash the holder of the power of attorney of original tenure holder.

#4. Case of Nanhu Singh (petitioner in writ petition (m/s) no. 644 of 2004) is that his father had neither executed any sale deed to any person nor power of attorney in favour of any person and therefore claims exclusive right on the said land. His claim has rightly been rejected by all the courts below for the simple 4 reason that father of Nanhe Singh has himself executed a sale deed on 10.5.1974 in favour of father of Hridyanath and subsequently gave sale deed on 2.4.1973 in favour of Vishwanath Prasad Verma and Amal Prasad. It is further evident from the fact that Sri Ghansiram himself had gave a statement in a suit being suit no. 70 of 1973 for permanent injunction filed by Om Prakash that he had never executed any power of attorney in favour of Bed Prakash and further he admitted of having executed a sale deed in the year 1973/74 in favour of Vishwanath Prasad Verma and Amal Prasad. Therefore case of Hridyanath who claims title on the said land on the basis of a sale deed executed in his favour on 3.3.1984 and

1.2.1985 by Vishwanath Prasad Verma and Amal Prasad as joint vendors is justified. These both sale deeds are the registered sale deeds. For the remaining land 2 Bigha 2 Biswa a sale deed had already been executed in favour of father of Hridyanath by original tenure holder i.e. Ghansiram on 10.5.1974. Therefore based on the evidence submitted by all the parties before the court below and there being overwhelming evidence in favour of Sri Hridyanath in the form of the sale deeds, as already referred above, lower courts came to the conclusion that the title on the said property is of Sri Hridyanath. This Court finds no anomaly in the order of Consolidation Officer and subsequent orders passed in revision. The writ petition (WPMS No. 644 of 2004) therefore is dismissed.

#5. As far as second writ petition (WPMS No. 959 of 2004) is concerned the claim of the petitioner is entirely based on validity of the power of attorney given by the original tenure holder to Sri Bed Prakash. The validity of 5 this power of attorney has been examined by the courts below and it has been held that the power of attorney did not authorize the power of attorney holder to transfer the land. The case of petitioner Om Prakash therefore in writ petition (WPMS No. 959 of 2004) is on an extremely weak footing and no benefit can be given to him as there is no anomaly in the order impugned or in the reasoning adopted by the concerned authority while passing such order. This writ petition (WPMS No. 959 of 2004) therefore is also dismissed.

#6. No order as to costs. Kuldeep (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

20.11.2012