Dismissed

Ragho Ram and Others v. D.D.C.and Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2019WRIB/399/1979

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging consolidation orders regarding land titles. Upholding subordinate courts found factual findings on inheritance shares as non-pervasive, the Court held that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, it could not reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority to substitute its view on findings of fact.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and all interim orders were vacated, leaving the consolidation orders in favor of the respondent intact.

Ragho Ram and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 03.05.2019 Delivered on 03.07.2019

¶3

Court No. - 34

¶4

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 399 of 1979

¶5

Petitioner :- Ragho Ram (since deceased and substituted by legal heir) and others Respondent :- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Pandey, Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, J.D.Pandey, Y.S. Bohara Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Kumar Singh, C.K. Rai, Haider Hussain,S.C.,V.K. Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

¶7

Heard Sri H.M.B. Sinha, Advocate, for petitioners; and, learned Standing Counsel and Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for respondents.

¶8

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed by Ragho Ram, Tirathraj alias Bullu (both now deceased and substituted by their legal heirs) and Dadan, all three sons of Sri Nath; and, Shiv Garul (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) challenging order dated 22.11.1976 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as “ASOC”) and the order dated 05.10.1978 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “DDC”) insofar as the same pertain to Khata No. 63 and 78.

¶9

Pleadings, as emerge from Writ Petition, are that petitioners 1, 2 and 3 purchased Plots No. 76, 139/2, 299, 300 to 308, 355, 356, 357, 361, 362, area 5 bigha 2 biswa of Khata No. 63 through registered sale-deed dated 23.08.1958 executed by Raj Mani. Similarly, petitioner-4 purchased Plots No. 109, 111, 116, 117, 139/8 area 2 bigha 16 biswa in Khata No. 78 through registered sale-deed dated 23.08.1958 from Raj Mani. The aforesaid land is situated in Village Khajuri Khurd, Tappa Daiya, Pargana Khairagarh, District Allahabad. In 1975-76 consolidation operations commenced in Village. Petitioners-1, 2 and 3 were recorded bhumidhar in respect of plots

¶10

¶11

which were in their possession and purchased by them as aforesaid, comprised Khata No. 63. Similarly petitioner-4 was recorded Bhumidhar in respect of plots comprised of Khata No. 78.

¶12

Respondent-4, however, filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1953”) before Consolidation Officer, Meza, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “CO”) stating that he and Raj Mani, being daughters' son of Asha Ram, inherited half share each, but in Revenue record, name of only Raj Mani was entered and he had no right to sell anything more than his half share, therefore, sale-deeds executed by him, of entire land, was illegal and void.

¶13

Petitioners filed separate written statements contesting the claim set up by respondent-4. It was alleged that Asha Ram died issue-less; petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration from Raj Mani who was duly recorded as sole tenant, prior to 1359 Fasali, and after becoming Bhumidhar executed sale deed to petitioners on 23.08.1958; Raj Mani also delivered possession of disputed land; petitioners are in continuous cultivatory possession of disputed land, hence right of respondent-4, if any, extinguished. It was further pleaded that respondent-4 has not filed any suit for cancellation of sale-deeds. Now Consolidation Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to respondent-4. The objections filed by Narbada Prasad was also in respect to some other Khatas , i.e., 58, 67, 83, 115 and 167 but petitioners in the present case are not concerned with land under those Khatas .

¶14

Respondent-4, in support of his claim filed Khataunies of 1334 Fasali and 1347 Fasali . 1334 Fasali Khatauni showed that in respect to Khata No. 63, only five plots, i.e., 356, 357, 358, 361 and 362 were recorded in the name of Asha Ram and subsequently in 1347 Fasali , the same got recorded in the name of Widow of Asha Ram, i.e., Mrs. Ram Kali.

¶15

¶16

CO vide order dated 12.05.1976 has formulated following five issues:

¶17

^^1& D;k oknh ucZnk izlkn iq= jke roadqy o jkt efu iq= eqjyh vk'kkjke ds okfjl gSa^^

¶18

“1. Whether the plaintiffs Narbada Prasad s/o Ram Tawankul and Rajmani s/o Murli are the heirs of Asharam?”

¶19

^^2& D;k lgnsbZ o lqXxk vk'kkjke o jkedyh dh yM+fd;k Fkh] o uoZnk izlkn lgnsbZ o jktefu lqXxk ds yM+ds gSa^^

¶20

“2. Whether Sahdei and Sugga are daughters of Asharam and Ramkali and whether Narbada Prasad is the son of Sahdei, and Rajmani, of Sugga?”

¶21

^^3& D;k oknh uoZnk izlkn vkjkth futkbZ dk Hkwfe?kj o lhjnkj gS^^

¶22

“3. Whether the plaintiff Narbada Prasad is the bhoomidhar and sirdar of the Araji in question?”

¶23

^^4& D;k izfroknhx.k vkjkth futkbZ ds Hkwfe/kj ;k lhjnkj gSa^^

¶24

“4. Whether the defendants are the bhoomidhar and sirdar of the Araji in question?”

¶25

^^5& [kkrksa esa i{kksa dk va'k D;k gS^^

¶26

“5. What share parties have in the khatas?”

¶27

(English Translation by Court) 8. Issues-1 and 2 were taken together and it was held that Asha Ram had two daughters, Sahdei and Sugga. Narbada Prasad is son of Sahdei and Raj Mani is son of Sugga and after death of Ram Kali, Narbada Prasad and Raj Mani were the legal heirs and representatives of Asha Ram. Thereafter it considered Issues-3 and 4 together and answered against Narbada Prasad holding that he failed to prove his possession over disputed property for the last almost 43 years. Operative part of order reads as under:

¶28

^^f'ko x:y o jk?kksjke ds firk JhukFk ds uke jkt efu iq= eqjyh us 23-8-58 dks jftLVªh c;ukek dj fn;kA nLrkost i=koyh ij gSA blh ds vk/kkj ij jk?kksjke o f'kox:y ntZ gq, f=os.kh ds gd esa egknso dh csok dyqb;k us fnukad 1&11&66 dks fgck dj fn;k FkkA mlh vk/kkj

¶29

¶30

ij f=os.kh ntZ gq,A vU; dkxth lk{; rFkk 1359 Q0 ds bUnzkt ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izfri{k o jktefu 1359 Q0 esa eqn~nr 11 lky ls 43 lky ds lkFk vius Lor% ds vf/kdkj ls dkfct jgsA vkSj mudk dCtk vkt rd py jgk gSA oknh uoZnk izlkn dk dCtk vkjkth futkbZ ij dHkh lkfcr ugha gksrkA vr% ucZnk izlkn vkjkth futkbZ ds lhjnkj ugha lkfcr gksrs cfYd izfri{khx.k vkjkth futkbZ ds Hkwfe/kj lhjnkj lkfcr gksrs gSA updÅ iq= fo'oukFk us dksbZ lk{; ugha fn;k gSA^^

¶31

“Raj Mani S/o Murli has on 23.08.1958 executed a registered sale-deed in favour of Shri Shreenath, i.e., father of Shiv Garul and Radho Ram. Documents are available on record. On this very basis, the names of Radho Ram and Shiv Garul came to be recorded; and on 01.11.1966, Kaluiyan, i.e., the widow of Mahadeva gifted it to Triveni. On that very basis, the name of Triveni came to be recorded. From other documentary evidences and the entries recorded for the fasli year 1359, it is clear that the opposite party and Raj Mani had in fasli year 1359 been in possession with their rights for 11 years to 43 years(?), and they are enjoying possession even today. The possession of the plaintiff Narwada Prasad on the land under suit has never been proved. Hence, Narwada Prasad is not proved to be sirdar of the land under suit; rather, opposite parties are proved to be bhoomidhar and sirdhar of the land under suit. Nachkau S/o Vishwanath hasn't given any evidence.” (English Translation by Court)

¶32

Respondent-4, Narbada Prasad, preferred appeal in respect of Khatas No. 63 and 78, besides disputing the findings of CO in respect to other Khatas , i.e., 50, 67, 83, 115 and 167. ASOC dismissed the appeal of respondent-4 in respect to Khatas No. 40, 67, 83, 115, 167 but allowed in respect to Khatas No. 63 and 78 vide order dated 22.11.1976, operative part whereof reads as under:

¶33

^^uoZnk izlkn dh vihy ckcr [kkrk 40] 67] 83] 115] 167 [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA [kkrk 63 ds 1@2 ls jk?kksjke vkfn dk uke [kkfjt fd;k

¶34

¶35

tkdj uoZnk izlkn crkSj lhjnkj ntZ fd;s tkosaA 1@2 fgLlk fyf[kr dk'rdkjk ds uke cnLrwj ntZ j[kk tkosA [kkrk 78 ds 1@2 Hkkx ls f'ko izlkn dk uke [kkfjt dj vihykUV lhjnkj ntZ fd;k tkosA 1@2 Hkkx f'ko izlkn ds uke cnLrwj j[kk tkosA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k esa mijksDr ds vuqlkj lq/kkj fd;k x;kA^^

¶36

“The appeal of Narbada Prasad with respect to khata nos. 40, 67, 83, 115, 167 is dismissed. After cancelling the names of Raghoram and others from ½ part of khata no. 63, the name of Narbada Prasad be entered as sirdar. ½ part thereof be continued to be registered in the name of kashtkars (land holders). After cancelling the name of Shiv Prasad from ½ part of khata no. 78, the appellant be registered as sirdar. The name of Shiv Prasad be continued to be registered against the ½ part thereof. In the order of Consolidation Officer , corrections were made as above.” (English Translation by Court)

¶37

Revision No. 160, 76 and 69 were filed by petitioners while Revision No. 214, 126 and 70 were filed by Narbada Prasad before DDC. Vide judgment and order dated 05.10.1978 DDC has partly allowed petitioners' Revisions but in respect of Khatas No. 63 and 78, it has maintained order of ASOC and has directed that in respect of above two Khatas, Narbada Prasad, respondent-4, shall be recorded as Bhumidhar with half share except Gata No. 229 of Khata No. 63 whereof DDC has directed that name of petitioners shall be recorded as per the basic year entry and name of Narbada Prasad is to be removed.

¶38

This writ petition has been filed challenging order of DDC dated 05.10.1978 and ASOC dated 22.11.1976 in respect of Khata No. 63 (except Plot No. 299) and 78 in respect whereto respondent-4 has been held of having half share.

¶39

Findings in respect of family tree of Asha Ram is founded on certain earlier litigations resulting in compromise in which Asha Ram was shown to have two daughters Sahdei and Sugga and respondent-

¶40

¶41

4, Narbada, is son of Sahdei. In the Khatauni of 1334 and 1347 Fasali, Asha Ram was shown as tenure holder and disputed Khatas 63 and 78 both were holding of Asha Ram. These are the findings of fact recorded by all three authorities and nothing has been placed before this Court to show any illegality or perversity therein, hence in jurisdiction under Article 226/227, I find no reason to interfere with the same. It has not been shown by any material on record that Raj Mani, who executed sale-deeds in favour of petitioners, had acquired any property of his own and it was not ancestral property, inherited by him from Asha Ram. In these facts and circumstances, it is evident that Raj Mani and Narbada Prasad both had equal shares in property inherited from Asha Ram. In absence of anything placed on record to show exclusive right of Raj Mani, it cannot be said that Raj Mani could have transferred more than what he himself possessed. These all are findings of fact recorded by authorities below and in absence of anything to show that there is any perversity or misreading, I find no reason to interfere therewith.

¶42

Counsel for petitioners contended that in 1334 Fasali all plots of Khata No. 63 were not recorded in the name of Asha Ram. Similarly, in 1347 Fasali all plots of Khata No. 63 were not recorded in the name of Asha Ram and only five plots no. 356, 357, 358, 361 and 362 were recorded in the name of Asha Ram. On the contrary, in the Revenue record entry in 1359 Fasali all 17 plots of Khata No. 63 were recorded in the name of Raj Mani, hence he had exclusive right and complete title over the said property and sell the same to petitioner vide sale deed dated 23.08.1958 and Courts below have erred in taking an otherwise view. Similarly, in 1359 Fasali, with respect of Khata No. 78, Raj Mani was recorded in Part-II of Khatauni under Zaman-17 with a period of 43 years which shows that he was in possession for a long period and respondent-4 was not in possession at all, hence, could not have claimed any title at all. He has

¶43

¶44

also placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Ram Avadh and others Vs. Ram Das and others 2009 (106) RD 625 stating that entry of basic year has to be accepted and no view otherwise can be taken.

¶45

Here the basic year entry in 1356 Fasali is not referred to by any of the parties. Earlier documents clearly show that property in dispute belong to Asha Ram. After his death, it was succeeded by his widow Ram Kali. Raj Mani and Narbada Prasad both are sons of daughters of Ram Kali, hence could have succeeded property in dispute, equally, having equal rights. Mere fact that in 1359 Fasali only Raj Mani was shown to be recorded as Tenure Holder, without any reference to an order as to why only Raj Mani's name was recorded, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below with regard to equal share of Narbada Prasad, which is not shown to be perverse or misreading of document in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution since the scope of judicial review in such matters is very restricted and narrow.

¶46

In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.

¶47

This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave

¶48

¶49

injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

¶50

In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 , Court said:

¶51

“Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere.”

¶52

A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 :

¶53

"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193 , to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".

¶54

In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 , Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice.

¶55

For interference under Article 227, finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran

¶56

¶57

Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47).

¶58

It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341; Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr.,(1999) 2 SCC 143).

¶59

Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 ).

¶60

In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

¶61

In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931, Court said that jurisdiction of High Court

¶62

¶63

under Article 227 of the Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse.

¶64

In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245 , Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.

¶65

In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472 , Court observed that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below.

¶66

Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97; and Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319.

¶67

In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675 , it was held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has

¶68

¶69

assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

¶70

In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294 , Court

¶71

said:

¶72

“...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions.”

¶73

In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar

¶74

Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 , Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011

¶75

¶76

SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650 .

¶77

In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction.

¶78

In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772 , Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.

¶79

In Commandant, 22^nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244 , Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227.

¶80

In the present case, I do not find that the orders impugned in this writ petition do satisfy any of the relevant considerations, as noticed above, so as to justify interference by this Court in this writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition.

¶81

Dismissed.

¶82

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶83

Dt. 03.07.2019 PS

Ragho Ram and Others v. D.D.C.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragho Ram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Singh Vs Bhagwati Singh

Chhote Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Grish Vs State of U.P.

Pyarey Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others