Dismissed

Rakesh Kumar Sharma and 13 Others v. Raju Singh and 6 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019FAPL/524/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal dismissed. The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that plaintiffs failed to prove valid ownership via patta. Defendants successfully established title through Gaon Sabha allotment and subsequent transfers, confirming the order under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; suit originally filed by appellants remained dismissed in favour of respondents.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma and 13 Others Vs Raju Singh and 6… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 524 of 2017

¶3

Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Sharma And 13 Others Respondent :- Raju Singh And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- K.S. Rathor,Ajai Kumar,Phool Singh Yadav,Shiv Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G K Gupta,S.S.P. Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

(Per Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶6

Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri S.S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for respondents.

¶7

This appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C. arise out of judgment and decree dated 19.9.2016 and 3.10.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. D) IInd, District Hapur, in Original Suit No.453 of 2013 between the Rakesh Kumar Sharma & others and Raju Singh & others.

¶8

Facts in brief are that plantiffs-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants-appellants restraining them from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiffs-appellants over 1500 sq.yd of land situated in Khasra No.13, Village Galand, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil Dhaulana, District Hapur.

¶9

According to plaintiffs-appellants, land in dispute was allotted on 21.12.1989 by the Chairman, Land Management Committee of Village Galand in favour of plantiff nos.1 to 4 and husband of plantiff no.5 and also in favour of father of plaintiff nos.6-8 and husband of plaintiff no.9 and father of plaintiff nos.10 to 14. The said allotment was of 250 sq.yd per person. After allotment, plaintiffs came in possession over the land so allotted, and constructed boundary wall and started using the same for their residential purpose.

¶10

Unfortunately, on 2.3.2007 and 3.10.2009, Ravi Kumar Sharma and Mukesh Kumar Sharma, one of plaintiffs in suit died, and their legal heirs were substituted. It was also stated that Khasra No.13 comprises of 30 Khatas, of which, khata no.788 is of 0.4170 hectare. It was on 22.7.2013 that around 5:00 p.m. defendants-respondents along with some anti-social elements tried to take illegal possession over the land in dispute. As such, plaintiffs-appellants were compelled to file Suit No.453 of 2013. Defendants-respondents contested the suit and filed their written statement specifically denying the averment so made. In additional pleas, it was stated that Goan Sabha allotted agricultural patta to defendant-

¶11

respondent no.3, Khajan in the year 1980 of Khasra No.13M measuring 0.417 hectare, being landless labourer vide resolution dated 2.12.1979, which was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur on 4.9.1980.

¶12

By order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur dated 16.5.1997, defendant no.3 became bhumidhar with transferable right and necessary entries were made in the revenue records. As defendant-respondent no.3 was in financial need, he sold 0.291 hectare land out of total land allotted to defendants-respondent nos.1 & 2 on 12.7.2004 after taking permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer on 7.6.2004. Thereafter, declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur on the application, which was registered as Case No.23 of 2011, and the same was decided on 5.8.2011. After the aforesaid declaration, defendant-respondent no.3 sold remaining part of land through registered sale deed executed in favour of defendantsrespondent nos.4 to 7 on 8.7.2013, and, since then, defendants are in possession over land in dispute. It has been specifically stated by defendants-respondents that no land was allotted for residential purpose to plaintiffs by the Gram Pradhan on 21.12.1989.

¶13

The Court below framed the following issues:-

¶14

" 1& D;k okn i= esa of.kZr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr lEifRr dk Lokeh gS rFkk bl izdkj ij izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ 2& D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS \ 3& D;k vnk fd;k x;k U;k;’kqYd vi;kZIr gS \ 4& D;k okn vkns’k 7 fu;e 3 nhokuh izfØ;k lafgrk ls ckf/kr gS \ 5& D;k okn vkns’k 7 fu;e 11 nhokuh izfØ;k lafgrk ls ckf/kr gS \ 6& D;k okn vko’;d i{kdkjksa ds vla;kstu ds nks’k ls n`f"kr gS \ 7& D;k okn vko’;d i{kdkjksa ds dqla;kstu ds nks"k ls nwf"kr gS \ 8& D;k okn dky ckf/kr gS \ 9& D;k oknhx.k dks dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu gqvk gS \ 10& D;k bl okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gS \ 11& D;k oknhx.k dk okn /kkjk 34] 38 o 41 fof’k"V vuqrks"k vf/k0 ds izko/kkuksa ls ckf/kr gS \ 12& D;k oknhx.k fdlh vU; vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS \ "

¶15

Court below while deciding issue no.1 recorded a categorical finding that paper no.12x1/1 to 12x1/6, which are said to be pattas executed in favour of plaintiffs do not bear the length and breath of land so allotted, as well as the directions. The plaintiffs failed to prove these pattas before the Court below, and also there was no approval by the competent authority of resolution passed by the Land Management Committee allotting the said land. While on the other hand, defendants have brought on record the sale deed so executed in favour of defendantsrespondent nos.1 and 2, as well as in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7 and

¶16

2 of 4

¶17

also the declaration under Section 143 made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur in Case No.23 of 2011.

¶18

Learned Counsel for appellants has submitted that the Court below had wrongly shifted burden of proving that patta was valid upon plaintiffs in place of defendants. Further he submitted that patta was granted for residential purpose in view of Rule 115D of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, the Court below was not correct to reject the same.

¶19

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶20

As it is evident from pleadings of plaintiffs-appellants that they were granted residential patta by the Land Management Committee on 21.12.1989, but there is no pleading as to when the said patta was approved by the competent authority, only averment made in plaint is that plaintiffs were allotted patta of 250 sq.yd of land in the year 1989. While, case of defendants is that on 2.12.1979, the Gaon Sabha allotted agricultural land to defendant no.3, Khajan, who was landless labourer and resolution of the Land Management Committee was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 4.9.1980. Further on 16.5.1997, defendant no.3 became bhumidhar with transferable right and necessary entries were made in revenue record.

¶21

Thereafter, after obtaining permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer on 7.6.2004, defendant no.3 sold 0.291 hectare land to defendant nos.1 and 2, and, thereafter declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur on 5.8.2011, in Case No.23/2011. Defendant no.3, sold rest of his land to defendant-respondent nos.4 to 7 on 8.7.2013, all these orders and sale deeds were brought on record by defendants-respondents to establish their case that land was validly allotted after resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha and approval granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1980. Thereafter, the defendant no.3 became bhumidhar with transferable right in the year, 1997 and subsequently declaration was made by the SubDivisional Officer under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on 5.8.2011.

¶22

The Trial Court in depth while dealing Issue no.1, which relates to ownership over land in dispute recorded a categorical finding that plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove their patta as alleged to have been granted in their favour in the year 1989, moreover, the Patta so produced by plaintiffs did not bear any length and breath of land so allotted, nor any

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

evidence was brought on record to prove whether patta was approved by any competent authority.

¶25

The argument made by learned Counsel for appellants that the Court below had shifted the burden of proof upon the plaintiffs is totally misconceived, as the burden lay upon plaintiffs to prove their possession as well as ownership over the land in dispute on the basis of patta granted in year 1989. On the other hand, defendants-respondents have brought on record the documentary evidences to establish the fact that land was allotted to them in the year, 1979, which was approved in the year, 1980 and, thereafter defendant no.3 became bhumidhar with transferable right in the year, 1997 and declaration being made under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the year 2011, which establishes the fact beyond doubt that land in question was validly allotted to defendant-respondent no.3, which was subsequently transferred through various sale deed to defendant-respondent nos.1,2 and defendants-respondent nos.4 to 7. We, therefore, find that the argument of the Counsel for appellants does not have any force and the Court below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants.

¶26

The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶27

Order Date :- 29.11.2019 S. Singh

¶28

4 of 4

Rakesh Kumar Sharma and 13 Others v. Raju Singh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Sharma and 13 Others v. Raju Singh and 6 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

Mohit Tyagi and Another Vs Smt. Ranjana Krishna and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs Smt. Deepa

Vrindavan Lawn Limited Laibility Partnership Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Prem Kishore Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and 2 Others

Shiksha Prasar Samitee, Beni Madhav Chavan Ji Maharaj Maha Vidyalaya Degree College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Prakash Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others