Disposed

Smt. Meera and Others v. D.D.C. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2018WRIB/19895/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined disputes over mutation of names in revenue records following the death of a Bhumidar. Directing the Consolidation Officer to decide pending applications by petitioners and respondent no. 4, the court resolved jurisdictional objections without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Consolidation Officer to decide pending applications by the petitioners and respondent no. 4 within four months after proper hearing.

Smt. Meera and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 19895 of 2001

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Meera & Others Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Case has been called in the revised list. In view of the office report dated 13.1.2018, service of notice on heirs of respondent nos. 3 & 4 is deemed sufficient. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the aforesaid heirs to oppose the present petition. Heard Shri Indal Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶6

One Sukhnandan was the Bhumidar of Plot Nos.623, 624, 625, 897 and 90. The surviving petitioners are the daughters and sons of Ram Adhar Rai and grandsons and granddaughters of Ram Ugrah. The aforesaid Sukhnandan died during the consolidation operations in the Village. On the death of Sukhnandan, Shri Ram Ugrah as well as respondent nos. 3 & 4 filed separate applications under section 12 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for mutation of their name in place of Sukhnandan. Respondent no. 4 had filed the application as the natural guardian of one Isha Datta claiming that Isha Datta was adopted by Sukhnandan during his life time while Ram Ugrah and respondent no. 3 had filed applications claiming succession under section 171 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950 on the basis of their alleged relationship with Sukhnandan. On the application of petitioner, Reference No.561 was registered before Consolidation Officer and on the application of Respondent No.4, Reference No.526 was registered before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The application filed by respondent no. 3 was decided and allowed ex parte by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 24.7.1979. The aforesaid order was allegedly passed by the concerned Consolidation Officer

¶7

without deciding the reference made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the applications filed by Ram Ugrah and respondent no.4 and without issuing any notice to the said persons on the application filed by respondent no.3. Subsequently, respondent no.4 filed an application dated 28.11.1979 and Ram Ugrah filed a restoration application dated 11.2.1982 before the Consolidation Officer praying for recall of the order dated 24.7.1979. The aforesaid applications were allowed by the concerned Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 7.8.1987. Against the order dated 7.8.1987, respondent no.3 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation registering Revision No.1208 and the aforesaid Revision No.1208 was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25.6.1991. The aforesaid order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e respondent no. 1 on the ground that restoration applications filed by Ram Ugrah and respondent no. 4 were not maintainable and the remedy available to the said persons was to file a revision against the order dated 24.7.1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer. In the meantime, Ram Ugrah died and therefore, Ram Adhar Rai, being the only son of Ram Ugrah, filed a Revision before respondent no. 1 i.e the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 9.7.1991 against the order dated 24.7.1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said revision was registered and numbered as Revision No.1386 of 1991 and in the aforesaid revision, respondent nos. 3 & 4 had been impleaded as opposite parties. In the meantime, against the order dated 25.6.1991 passed by respondent no.1, respondent no. 4 filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as writ petition no.18782 of 1991 and in the aforesaid case an interim order dated 11.7.1991 was passed by this Court staying the operation of the order dated 25.6.1991. The effect of the order dated 11.7.1991 passed by this Court in writ petition no.18782 of 1991 was that order dated 7.8.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer setting aside the order dated 24.7.1979 became operative. Subsequently, Revision no.1386 of 1991 instituted by Ram Adhar Rai against the order dated 24.7.1979 passed by Consolidation Officer was also allowed by

¶8

respondent no.1 by his order dated 31.8.1996 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Consequently, the Consolidation Officer re-started the proceedings and vide his order dated 11.12.1996 allowed the application of Ram Ugrah/Ram Adhar Rai filed under section 12 of the Act and directed that the name of Ram Adhar Rai be recorded in place of the deceased Sukhnandan. Respondent no.4 filed a restoration application dated 21.12.1996 before the Consolidation Officer praying for recall of the order dated 11.12.1996 and on the said application an ex parte interim order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 21.12.1996 itself staying the operation of the order dated 11.12.1996. On coming to know about the order dated 21.12.1996, Ram Adhar Rai filed an application before the Consolidation Officer on 4.1.1997 praying for recall of the order dated 21.12.1996. The said application was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 8.7.1997 on the ground that his previous order dated 21.12.1996 did not affect the entries in the revenue records relating to the basic year and it would be appropriate that proceedings instituted by different parties regarding the property of Sukhnandan may remain stayed till appropriate decision was taken by the High Court on writ petition no. 18782 of 1991 and appropriate orders were passed in the said writ petition. Against the order dated 8.7.1987, petitioner filed a revision under section 48 of the Act before respondent no.1 which was numbered as Revision No.682 and was dismissed by order dated 13.2.2001 passed by respondent no.1. The orders dated 8.7.1997 passed by Consolidation Officer and 13.2.2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶9

After filing of the present writ petition, Shri Brij Bhushan i.e respondent no.4 who had filed writ petition no.18782 of 1991 died and no substitution application was filed by his heirs praying to be substituted in writ petition no.18782 of 1991 in place of Brij Bhushan and to prosecute the aforesaid writ petition. Consequently, by order

¶10

dated 17.11.2006 passed by this Court, the said writ petition was dismissed as abated and the interim order passed in the said case was also vacated by this Court. The effect of the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by this Court in writ petition no.18782 of 1991 was that the order dated 25.6.1991 passed by Respondent No.1 in Revision No.1208 revived as a result of which the order dated 7.8.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer stands set aside. Consequently, by virtue of the order dated 31.8.1996 passed by Respondent No.1 in Revision No.1386 of 1991, the Consolidation Officer is liable to hear and decide the application filed by the predecessors of the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act and there is no obstruction before the Consolidation Officer to hear and decide the dispute raised by Ram Ugrah as well as respondent no. 3 & 4 through applications filed by them under section 12 of the Act which shall now be presently prosecuted by their heirs. In the aforesaid circumstances, without going into the merits of the impugned orders, the Consolidation Officer- Sadar, District Azamgarh i.e respondent no.2 is directed to decide the application dated 4.1.1997 filed by the predecessors of the petitioners as well as application dated 21.12.1996 filed by respondent no.4. In case the Consolidation Officer allows the restoration application dated 21.12.1996 filed by respondent no.4, he shall decide the case finally after hearing the petitioners i.e the heirs of Ram Adhar Rai as well as respondent nos. 3 & 4 after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and pass orders on the application filed by Ram Ugrah, which is now being prosecuted by petitioners, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.3.2018 IB

Smt. Meera and Others v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meera and Others v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indra Bahadur Vs D.D.C. Alld. and Others

Dhanpal and Others Vs D.D.C. and Another

Baber Ali and Others Vs D.D.C. and Another

Nisar Ahmed Vs D.D.C. and Others

Tara Chandera and Others Vs Collector Sahranpur and Others

Kallu Vs D.D.C. and Others