The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders in a land consolidation dispute. The court held that retrial of settled issues of will execution and factual findings regarding suspicious circumstances was beyond the writ court's jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order, if any, stood vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1247 of 2001 Petitioner :- Triveni Singh Respondent :- D.D.C., Mirzapur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K.Singh,Dr. V.K. Rai,K.B. Srivastava,Sankatha Rai,V.K. Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list.
Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 is present.
The facts of the case as evident from the records are that the petitioner and one Pancham Singh were the sons of Mangaru Singh. Respondent no. 4 is the widow of Pancham Singh i.e. the daughter-in-law of Mangaru Singh. The dispute between the parties is in regard to Khata Nos. 16, 72 and 11 relating to different villages. Initially, Mangaru Singh was recorded as a tenure holder in the aforesaid khatas. After the death of Mangaru Singh, the petitioner and respondent no. 4 were recorded as co-tenure holders in the aforesaid khatas in place of Mangaru Singh. Subsequently, during the consolidation operations held in the village under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953), objections were filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 4 claiming themselves to be the sole tenure holders of the khatas in which Mangaru Singh was recorded as a tenure holder. The claim of the petitioner was based on Will dated 28.8.1985 allegedly executed by Mangaru Singh in his favour while the claim of respondent no. 4 was based on Will dated 14.19.1985 allegedly executed by Mangaru Singh in her favour. On the said objections, Case Nos. 701,
209 and 464 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 were registered in the court of Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 3. The Consolidation Officer vide his judgement and order dated 22.8.1996 dismissed the objection filed by respondent no. 4 and allowed the objection filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner succeeded to the property of Mangaru Singh on the basis of Will dated 28.8.1985. Against the aforesaid order dated 22.8.1996 passed by respondent no. 3, respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 2 registering Appeal No. 1183 of 1995-96. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 2 vide his judgment and order dated 28.11.1998. Against the order dated 28.11.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 registering Revision No. 14/98 before respondent no. 1. The said revision has been dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 21.12.2000. The orders dated 28.11.1998 and 21.12.2000 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively, have been challenged in the present writ petition.
A perusal of the order dated 22.8.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 3 shows that the same is a cryptic order and respondent no. 3 has upheld the Will dated 28.8.1985 without considering and appreciating the evidence on record. In his judgment dated 22.8.1996, the Consolidation Officer has not given any reasons for accepting the Will dated 28.8.1985. In his judgment dated 28.11.1998, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation i.e.
respondent no. 2 while dealing with the evidence on record has recorded his finding that the execution of the Will dated 28.8.1985 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the petitioner was not able to explain the suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will dated 28.8.1985. In his aforesaid order, respondent no. 2 has also recorded his finding that there were major contradictions in the depositions of different witnesses produced by the petitioner to prove the execution of the Will dated 28.8.1985 and therefore no orders can be passed relying on the said Will. The aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court, has been upheld by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 21.12.2000. The findings recorded by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their impugned orders dated 28.11.1998 and 21.12.2000 are findings of fact recorded after examining, in detail, the evidence on record. There is no perversity or illegality in the aforesaid findings of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and therefore the said findings are not amenable to interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 4.4.2018 Satyam
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders upholding exclusive tenure in favour of the petitioner are perversely unrelated to evidence on record?
Whether findings on suspicious circumstances and contradictions in witnesses establish perjury warranting writ intervention?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Triveni Singh
D.D.C., Mirzapur
Pancham Singh's widow
Consolidation Officer
Settlement Officer of Consolidation
D.D.C. Mirzapur
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
