Dismissed

Kallu v. D.D.C. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2018WRIB/62345/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a revision application regarding disputed land plots. The petitioner alleged fraudulent recording of names during consolidation but failed to prove an objection was filed in 1985. The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the lack of jurisdiction stemmed from the failure to prove filing of necessary objections.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not fit for interference under Article 226.

Kallu Vs D.D.C. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 62345 of 2005

¶3

Petitioner :- Kallu Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh,Arun Kumar,Lavlesh Shukla,Pankaj Dubey,R.S. Mishra,V.K.S.Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.S. Pandey,Ramesh Chandra Singh,S.P. Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri R.C.Singh, counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

¶6

The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Plots whose original number was 142/1 and 142/2. During the first consolidation operation held in the Village, aforesaid plots were re-numbered as Plot Nos 105/1 and 105/2. During the second consolidation operation held in the Village, the said plots were again re-numbered as Plot Nos. 173 and 174. The first consolidation operation in the Village started in the year 1956 and a notification under section 52(1) of U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act) closing the consolidation proceedings in the Village was issued in 1961. During the first consolidation proceedings held in the Village, name of Ram Dei, i.e mother of respondent no.3, was recorded against the disputed plots and C.H.Form 45 was accordingly prepared showing the name of Ram Dei i.e mother of respondent no.3. The second consolidation proceedings in the Village started in the year 1983 and a notification under section 52(1) of the Act regarding the aforesaid proceeding was issued in the year 1991. In 2004, petitioners filed an application before the Consolidation Officer stating that they had filed an objection under section 9-A of the Act before the Consolidation Officer in 1985 but the said objection was misplaced and no decision was taken by the Consolidation Officer on the aforesaid objection allegedly filed by the petitioners and therefore, through the application dated 18.3.2004, petitioners prayed that the Consolidation Officer may decide the objection filed by the petitioners. The claim of the

¶7

petitioners was that their predecessor in interest were recorded in the revenue record against the disputed plots till 1362 Fasli and the name of mother of respondent no. 3 was fraudulently recorded during first consolidation operation held in the Village. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 19.8.2004 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners after recording the fact that petitioners had not been able to prove that they had filed any objection in the year 1985 and the report submitted by the District Record Room also stated that no records relating to the objection as claimed by the petitioners were available in the record room. Against the order dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioners filed a revision under section 48 of the Act before respondent no.1 which was dismissed by judgement and order dated 22.6.2005 on the ground that the Consolidation Courts had no jurisdiction to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners as the petitioners had not been able to prove that any objection as claimed by them was filed in the year 1985. The order dated 22.6.2005 passed by respondent no.1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that in his order dated 22.6.2005, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that entries in the name of mother of respondent no. 3 in the revenue records relating to the disputed plots was apparently recorded fraudulently. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the aforesaid circumstances, the Consolidation Courts were liable to consider the objections of the petitioners as the entries in the revenue record were vitiated as a result of fraud committed by respondent no.3 and his mother. Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for petitioners, counsel for respondents has argued that from the evidence on record, it was established that petitioners had not filed any objection before the Consolidation Officer as claimed by him and therefore, the Consolidation Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the petitioner and the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by respondent no.1 is according to law.

¶9

Considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.8.2004 passed by Consolidation Officer and order dated 22.6.2005 passed by respondent no. 1 shows that the application dated 18.3.2004 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that petitioners had not been able to prove that any objection was filed by them before the Consolidation Officer in the year 1985 as claimed by them. The fact that the petitioners had not filed any objection in the year 1985 was also reported by the concerned Incharge of the record room. In his impugned order respondent no.1 has rightly held that Consolidation Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the petitioners as the petitioners had failed to establish that any objection as alleged by them was filed in the year 1985. The question whether the name of mother of respondent no. 3 was fraudulently recorded in the revenue records during the first consolidation operations could have been decided only if a proper objection was filed by the petitioners during the second consolidation operation. In absence of any such objection, the Consolidation Courts had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the petitioners regarding the disputed plots. Findings recorded by respondent no.1 and Consolidation Officer are findings of fact and based on evidence and are not amenable to examination by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

¶11

For the aforesaid reasons, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.3.2018 IB

Kallu v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu 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

Smt. Meera and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Nisar Ahmed Vs D.D.C. and Others

Tara Chandera and Others Vs Collector Sahranpur and Others