Dismissed

Hazira Begum v. Deputy Drector of Consolidation and Another

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2022WRIB/4660/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order deleting the petitioner's name from revenue records. The Court upheld the impugned order, noting the sale deed was executed during consolidation proceedings and barred under Section 5(1)(c) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the impugned order calling for no interference; sale deed during consolidation barred by law.

Hazira Begum Vs Deputy Drector of Consolidation and Another — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 23.11.2022 Delivered On:- 30.11.2022

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4660 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hazira Begum Respondent :- Deputy Drector Of Consolidation And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt,Mohammad Mustafa Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Murli Dhar Mishra,Prabhakar Dubey Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vyas Kumar Prasad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohammad Mustafa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Murli Dhar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned Standing counsel for respondent no. 1.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and Reference No. 11 of 2016-17 (Mewa Devi vs. Hazira Begum).

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that chak no. 547 was recorded in the name of Smt. Mewa Devi, respondent no. 2 in the basic year. She executed a sale deed dated 29.06.1976 in favour of Rehana Begum of plot no. 2711, area 0-10-0 of chak no. 547 on 29.06.1976 and another sale deed in favour of Azimullah of 3/11 share of area of 02-15-09 the aforesaid chak no. 547 on 10.10.1980. The respondent no. 2 further executed sale deed dated 23.03.1981 in favour of Azimullah of 11/12 share of 3/5th of the remaining area of 2-0-6 of chak no. 547 and another sale deed in favour Jagnarayan son of Ram Dulare of 1/12th share of 3/5th of the remaining area 2-0-6 of chak no. 547.

¶7

¶8

Finally the respondent no. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner of 49/65 share area 3-0-5 of chak no. 547 on 30.10.1981. The name of the petitioner was recorded over khata no. 16 in CA form 45 as per the sale deed dated 30.10.1981 and after denotification of the village under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 03.07.1982, her name was recorded in revenue record. After lapse of about 30 years, respondent no. 2 moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar on 08.10.2010 for deleting the name of petitioner from khata no. 16 in C.H. form 45. The Deputy Director of Consolidation called a report from Consolidation Officer. The consolidator made a reference on 09.12.2010 which was forwarded to Deputy Director of Consolidation by the Assistant Consolidation Officer through the Consolidation Officer.

¶9

The Consolidation Officer forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted the reference and deleted the name of the petitioner over khata no. 16 in form 45 on 10.03.2011 by means of an ex-parte order. The petitioner after coming to know of the aforesaid order moved a restoration application dated 31.03.2011 which was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 10.05.2012. The petitioner challenged the orders dated 10.03.2011 and 10.05.2012 before this Court by way of Writ – B No. 42502 of 2012 which was allowed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 on the ground that the orders were passed behind the back of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

¶10

After the order of this Court the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed the Settlement Officer Consolidation to submit fresh reference. The petitioner filed her objection against the report of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation returned the file of Settlement Officer Consolidation to submit fresh reference before

¶11

¶12

05.10.2017 after affording opportunity of objection to Azimullah, Jagranarain and Rehana Begum. The Settlement Officer Consolidation submitted his repot dated 09.10.2017. The petitioner filed application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before the tehsildar for mutating her name on the basis of sale deed dated 30.10.1981 and tehsildar vide order dated 22.05.2012 allowed the same by the order dated 22.05.2012. The respondent no. 2 filed recall application for recalling the order dated 22.05.2012 which was recalled by the tehsildar on 25.10.2012. The petitioner filed a restoration application against the order dated 25.10.2012 tehsildar (Judicial) who vide order dated 28.12.2013 stayed his order dated 25.10.2012.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal whereby he has accepted the reference dated 09.10.2017 forwarded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar and directed that the name of the petitioner recorded in C.H. Form 45 regarding khata no. 16 be deleted and directed the name of respondent no. 2 to be recorded along with other khatedars.

¶14

Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that sale deed dated 30.10.1981 is regarding part of chak no. 547 of respondent no. 2. The aforesaid sale deed was got executed without permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation. She illegally got her name entered in C.H. Form 45 in place of respondent no. 2, Mewa Devi, along with other co-tenure holder of khata no. 16 which was totally illegal. He has been submitted that the writ petition lacks merit and is required to be dismissed.

¶15

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the material brought on record, this court finds that there is no order passed by

¶16

¶17

Consolidation Officer directing recording of the name of petitioner over plot no. 547. Only photocopy of the sale deed was brought on record. The finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that only on the basis of sale deed the name of vendor cannot be recorded in C.H. Form 45 is correct. Unless there is an order of competent authority of petitioner in favour it cannot be recorded. The petitioner failed to bring on record any evidence to prove as to what was the basis of recording of her name in C.H. Form 45. Moreover the sale deed was executed during consolidation proceedings and has been found to be barred by Section 5(1)(c) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953.

¶18

In view of the above consideration, the impugned order dated 18.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar calls for no interference.

¶19

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶20

Order Date :- 30.11.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.11.30 16:48:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hazira Begum v. Deputy Drector of Consolidation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazira Begum v. Deputy Drector of Consolidation and Another

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

Bachchi Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kishor Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Chandrakishor Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Rajan @ Yagesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uttam and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Pramod Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others