Allowed¶43

Jagdev v. Harihar Nath

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2023WRIB/303/1977

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ('Act, 1950'); Sections 21, 204, 209, 210; consolidation proceedings; Sirdari/Bhumidhari/Asami rights; void interchange (exchange); void mortgage; unauthorised possession continuous since 1954; no eviction suit instituted or decree executed within limitation; Deputy Director of Consolidation; Settlement Officer of Consolidation; Appellate Authority order dated 07.09.1974 upheld; Revisional Authority order dated 23.08.1976 set aside; writ petition allowed. No precedents cited; decision rests on statutory analysis of Sections 210 and 21 of Act, 1950.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 23.08.1976 set aside; order of Appellate Authority dated 07.09.1974 upheld. ¶43

Jagdev Vs Harihar Nath — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 23.08.1976 set aside; order of Appellate Authority dated 07.09.1974 upheld.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revisional Authority's findings were self-contradictory and unsustainable inasmuch as it denied the petitioner any right on the basis of the mortgage deed while simultaneously declaring him Asami on the basis of the same mortgage deed. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

The findings of the Revisional Authority were self-contradictory: on one hand it held that the petitioner could not get any right on the basis of the mortgage deed, and on the other hand declared him Asami on the basis of the mortgage deed only.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Once the interchange was declared void, the mortgage also became void and the petitioner's possession became illegal; it nevertheless remained continued for many years, and admittedly no proceedings for eviction were taken at the behest of the respondents, so the legal consequence under the Act would fall.

¶39

Key takeaways

Under Section 210 of Act, 1950, if a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a Bhumidhar or Asami, or a decree for eviction obtained in such suit is not executed within the period of limitation, the person taking or retaining possession will become Bhumidhar or Asami, as the case may be.ratio¶40
Since the mortgage was declared illegal by all the authorities, the Revisional Authority's application of Section 21 of Act, 1950 was erroneous, whereas the Appellate Authority rightly applied the provisions of Section 210 of Act, 1950 and held that the petitioner became Sirdar since no proceeding of eviction was undertaken.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) allows WRIT - B No. 303 of 1977 in a second round of consolidation litigation. The interchange between Durbali and Harihar Nath having been declared void, the subsequent mortgage by Durbali in favour of Jagdev became void and the petitioner's possession — continuous since 1954 — was unauthorised; however, as admittedly no proceedings for eviction were taken at the behest of the respondents, Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 applied: where no suit for eviction under Section 209 is instituted, or a decree obtained is not executed within limitation, the person taking or retaining possession becomes Bhumidhar or Asami, as the case may be. The Revisional Authority acted self-contradictorily in denying the petitioner any right on the basis of the mortgage deed while declaring him Asami under Section 21 on its very basis; the Appellate Authority had rightly applied Section 210 and held the petitioner Sirdar. Impugned order dated 23.08.1976 set aside; appellate order dated 07.09.1974 upheld.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227049

¶2

Reserved on 28.11.2023 Delivered on 01.12.2023

¶3

Court No. - 48

¶4

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 303 of 1977

¶5

Petitioner :- Jagdev Respondent :- Harihar Nath Counsel for Petitioner :- A.N. Bhargava, Counsel for Respondent :- S.C., ,H.M. Srivastava, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

1 . This is second round of litigation during consolidation proceedings. In first round matter reached upto the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it was remitted back to Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide afresh.

¶8

2 . On remand, an appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 07.09.1974, whereby possession of petitioner/ appellant was found continuous from 1954, on basis of a mortgage deed and it was held that since no proceedings were undertaken for eviction, therefore, he was settled with the right of Bhumidhari, whereas respondents were found neither in possession nor otherwise held to be entitled for right on land in dispute. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:

¶9

“वि��ावि�त भूवि� पर कब्जा जग�ेब का �ुब�ली के रेहन लिलखाने के साथ हु�ा �ुब�ली ने वि��ावि�त गाटे का रेहन जग�े� के पक्ष �े वि�नांक 17.06.54 को विकया �ुब�ली के कब्जे �ें अड़चन पड़ी उसने अपने रूपये के लिलये न्यायालय �ी�ानी �े �ा�ा प्रस्तुत विकया यह �ा�ा जग�े� बना� �ुब�ली हुआ। जग�े� ए�ं �ुब�ली की ओर से न्यायालय �ी�ानी �ें काय� हुआ। हरिरहनाथ �ुब�ल की ओर से साक्ष्य कक्ष �े आये उनका कथन न्यायालय वि��ानी के स�क्ष वि�नांक

¶10

¶11

28.05.56 को लिलखा गया। उन ् होने अपने कथन �े ं स ् �ीकार व ि कया व ि क �ुब�ली ने जग�े� क हक �े रेहनना�ा ल े ि लखा है। जो खेत ल ि लखा है उस पर जग�े� का े कब ् जा है उन ् होने अपने कथन �े �ुब�ली द ्व ारा जग�े� क पक े ्ष �े ं ल ि लखे हुए रेहन े तथा जग�े� क कब े ् जे को स ् �ीकार व ि कया �ुब�ली ए�ं हर ि रहरनाथ का ब�लन अ�ैध े घोव ि 5त हुआ। �ुब�ली द ्व ारा जग�े� क पक े ्ष �े ं ल ि लखा गया रेहनना�ा भी अ�ैध े हुआ। ऐसी स ्थि स ् थत ि त �े ं जग�े� का कब ् जा अनुज ्ञ ात ् �क नही हो सकता। जग�े� का कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर �ुब�ली ए�ं हर ि रहरनाथ क कथन से प े ्र �ाण ि <त है। जग�े� े का कथन अत ि धनस ् थ न ् यायालय क स�क े ्ष ल ि लखा गया है। उसने अपने कथन �े ं े कहा व ि क स ि सक�ी�ार ने उसका हल बैल खेत से व ि नकाल व ि �या और तब उसने �ी�ानी �े ं �ा�ा व ि कया। सिसक�ी�ार हरिरहरनाथ के अला�ा और कोई था। सिसक�ी�ार की ओर से कोई वि��ा� नही है इससे प्र�ाणि<त है विक सिसक�ी�ार का कब्जा वि��ावि�त भूवि� पर नही रहा। हर ि रहरनाथ ने कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर न ् यायालय �ी�ानी �े ं जग�े� का स ् �ीकार व ि कया �ुब�ली भी कब ् जा जग�े� का स ् �ीकार व ि कया। ऐसी स ्थि स ् थत ि त �े ं कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर जग�े� का भी �ाना जायेगा। जग�े� का कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर 17.06.54 से हुआ और तब से कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर व ि नरन ् तर जग�े� का ही है। उसक व े ि �र ू द ्ध कोई बे�खली े का �ा�ा हर ि रहर नाथ की ओर से स�य क अन े ् तग�त नही हुआ। े

¶12

कब ् जा या तो अनुज ्ञ ात ् �क होना या अध ् यासन क आधार पर होगा। कब े ् जा े या तो �ैध होगा या अ�ैध। जग�े� का कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर अ�ैध �स ् ता�ेज क आधार पर हुआ। जग�े� का कब े ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर न तो �ैध है और न े अनुज ्ञ ात ् �क। ऐसी �शा �े ं जग�े� का कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर अ�ैध ए�ं अध ् यासन क आधार पर �ाना जायेगा। जग�े� का कब े ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर े बतौर अध ् यासीन क सन् े 1954 े से व ि नरन ् तर है जग�े� का स�य क अन े ् तर े बे�खल नही व ि कया गया। जग�े� को व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर सीर�ारी स ् �त ् � हास ि सल हो चुका है। हर ि रहर नाथ का स ् �त ् � व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर बहुत पहले ही स�ाप ्त हो चुका है ।” ( E mphasis supplied) mphasis supplied)

¶13

3 . A revision was filed at instance of the respondents, which was allowed in part, vide order dated 23.08.1976, whereby order of Appellate Authority was modified to the extent that

¶14

¶15

respondents were held Bhumidhar and petitioner was held to be Asami in view of Section 21(Emphasis supplie d ) ) of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Emp h asis supplied) ereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”). Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

¶16

“�ैने पक्षों के वि�द्वान �कीलो को सुना और सम्बस्थिन्धत पत्रा�लिलयों का अ�लोकन विकया।

¶17

गाटा सं० 866 क्षेत्रफल 1 बीघा 2 विबस्�ा 6 घूरका वि��ा� है। यह गाटा आधार �5� के अणिभलेख �ें विनगरानीकता� की भूवि�धरी �ज� है। वि�पक्षी जग�े� ने यह �ा�ा विकया विक �ह वि��ावि�त भूवि� का �ूत�विहन है। वि�द्वान चकबन्�ी अतिधकारी ने जग�े� को वि��ावि�त भूवि� �े कोई हक नही वि�या। वि�द्वान सहायक बन्�ोबस्त अतिधकारी चकबन्�ी ने अपने आ�ेश वि�नांक 07.09.74 द्वारा जग�े� को वि��ावि�त भूवि� �े ज�ीं�ारी उन्�ूलन अतिधविनय� की धारा 7.9.74 द्वारा जग�े� को वि��ावि�त भूवि� �े ज�ीं�ारी उन्�ूलन अतिधविनय� की धारा 210 के अन्तग�त सीर�ारी का हक वि�या। सहायक बन्�ोबस्त अतिधकारी चकबन्�ी के इसी आ�ेश वि�नांक 07.09.74 के लिखलाफ यह विनगरानी �ायर की गई है।

¶18

�ोनो पक्षों के अनुसार विनगरानी कता� तथा वि�पक्षी �ुरबली और ब्रह्म�े� के बीच �ें वि�नांक 19.12.53 को ब�लबन हुआ था। सिजसके अनुसार वि��ावि�त गाटा �ुरबली और ब्रह्म�े� को वि�ला था। तथा �ुरबली और ब्रह्म�े� का गाटा सं० 211 विनगरानी कता� को वि�ला। इसके बा� �ुरबली और ब्रह्म�े� ने वि�नांक 17.06.54 को जग�े� के हक �ें रेहन ना�ा लिलखा। चकबन्�ी न्यायालय �ें पहले हरिरहर � �ुरबली आवि� के बीच �ें �ुक��ा चला था 1953 का ब�लबन अ�ैधाविनक �ाना गया और विनगरानी कता� वि��ावि�त गाटे का भूवि�धर करार वि�या गया। विनगरानी कता� के वि�द्वान �कील ने यह तक� विगया विक चूँविक वि��ावि�त गाटा �ुरबली आवि� के ब�लबन �ें वि�या गया था। इसलिलये �ुरबली आवि� का कब्जा वि��ावि�त गाटे पर विनगरानी कता� की अनु�तित से था और �ुरबली आवि� द्वारा वि�पक्षी जग�े� के हक �ें लिलये गये रेहनना�े के आधार पर जग�े� का कब्जा �ुरबली आवि� की अनु�तित से ही �ाना जायेगा। इसलिलये जग�े� का कब्जा विनगरानी कता� की अनु�तित से ही �ाना जाना चाविहये और जग�े� को वि��ावि�त भूवि� के सीर�ारी का हक नही वि�या जाना चाविहये। वि�पक्षी जग�े� के वि�द्वान

¶19

¶20

�कील ने यह तक� विकया विक ब�लबन अ�ैधाविनक था। इसलिलये जग�े� का कब्जा विनगरानी कता� के लिखलाफ �ुखालफाना कब्जा �ाना जाना चाविहये और जग�े� की वि��ावि�त भूवि� से सीर�ारी का हक वि�या जाना चाविहये। यह सही है व ि क ब�लबन अ�ैधाव ि नक था। इसल ि लये जग�े� का कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर अ�ैधाव ि नक हो�ेगा। पर क�ल अ�ैधाव े ि नक कब ् जे होने से ही ज�ी ं �ारी का हक े नही व ि �ल सकता। क ् योव ि क धारा 210 क अन े ् तग�त सीर�ारी का हक पाने क ल े ि लये ेे यह भी साव ि बत होना आ�श ् यक है व ि क जग�े� का कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर व ि नगरानी कता� क व े ि बना अनु�त ि त क था। �रबली आव े ि � का कब ् जा व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � ेे पर हर ि रहर नाथ की अनु�त ि त से था और �ुरबली आव ि � की अनु�त ि त से ही जग�े� ने व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � पर कब ् जा व ि कया इसल ि लये जग�े� का कब ् जा हर ि रहर नाथ की अनु�त ि त क नही �ाना जा सकता। ऐसी स े ्थि स ् थत ि त �े ं जग�े� को कब ् जे क आधार े ेे पर ज�ी ं �ारी उन ् �ूलन अत ि धव ि नय� की धारा 210 क अन े ् तग�त व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � �े ं े सीर�ारी का हक नही व ि �या जा सकता। बहरहाल चूँव ि क जग�े� � व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � का �ुत�हीन है और व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � ज�ी ं �ारी उन ् �ूलन क पू�� खील कारी े े कास ् तकारी थी, इसल ि लये जग�े� व ि ��ाव ि �त भूव ि � का ज�ी ं �ारी उन ् �ूलन अत ि धव ि नय� की धारा 21 डी क अन े ् तग�त आसा�ी ही �ेगा। े

¶21

विनगारी आंणिशक रूप से स्�ीकार की जाती है। सहायक बन्�ोबस्त अतिधकारी चकबन्�ी का आ�ेश वि�नांक 07.09.74 रद्द विकया जाता है और यह आ�ेश वि�या जाता है विक विनगरानी कता� वि��ावि�त भूवि� का भूवि�धर रहेगा तथा वि�पक्षी जग�े� वि��ावि�त भूवि� का आसा�ी रहेगा। ग्रा� अणिभलेखों के तद्नुसार अ�ल�रा� कर वि�या जा�े।" ( E mphasis supplied) mphasis supplied)

¶22

4 . Sri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that possession of petitioner was held by all authorities since 1954 over land in dispute. It has also been held by all authorities that no suit was filed or any action was taken by respondents or by Gaon Sabha to evict petitioner. Therefore, findings returned by Appellate Authority that petitioner has attained right of Bhumidhari was wrongly interfered to the extent that petitioner was given right of Asami only as well as

¶23

¶24

respondents were wrongly held Bhumidhar though their right was rejected by two lower authorities.

¶25

5 . Sri Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submitted that in view of Section 204 of Act, 1950 even today in case petitioner may be able to show that respondents have not taken any steps to evict him, still he would get benefit of above referred provision.

¶26

6 . None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents though a counter affidavit was filed on their behalf. 7 . Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. Relevant paragraphs of counter affidavit are mentioned hereinafter:

¶27

“9. That in reply the contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the objection filed by the petitioner was not only dismissed on the technical grounds but also on the other grounds e.g. on the own admission made by the petitioner and absence of any entry regarding possession in favour of petitioner. It is, further, submitted that after consideration of entire records of the case consolidation officer rightly dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner.

¶28

That in reply to the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that statement made by the deponent in civil suit was not relevant and learned S.O.C. has rightly ignored that statement. Petitioner himself had himself admitted that he was not in possession over the plot no. 866.

¶29

That the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not correct as stated and as such denied. It is submitted that both the theory of exchange and mortgage were held as void and against the provision of law. As the

¶30

¶31

certified copy of the statement made by the deponent was accepted by the A.S.O.C. without affording an opportunity to the deponent to confront it and to meet the same learned D.D.C. remanded the case before the S.O.C. for consideration of case after taking other evidences, if any, as fresh. Petitioner never entered into the possession over the plot in dispute and he had himself admitted this position in the civil suit filed by him.

¶32

That in reply to the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is submitted that learned S.O.C. has wrongly without properly appreciating the facts and law applicable to the case allowed the appeal. It is very pertinent to mention here that petitioner neither pleaded, nor claimed to be in adverse possession over the land in dispute and has failed to prove his possession much less continuous possession over the land in dispute for over the statutory period of limitation. Petitioner has himself admitted that he was not in possession over the plot in dispute. It is, further, submitted that the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned A.S.O.C. are based of no evidence and are liable to be set aside.”

¶33

8 . There are two important aspects of the case. First was ‘interchange’ between Durbali and Harihar Nath (Emphasis supplied) Respondents) and thereafter ‘mortgage’ by Durbali in favour of Jagdev (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner). Therefore, in case ‘interchange’ was declared void, then ‘mortgage’ would have no legal consequence and possession of petitioner would be without any legal authority.

¶34

9 . The Appellate Authority has held that ‘interchange’ was already declared void, therefore, ‘mortgage’ has no legal consequence, however, petitioner’s possession was found

¶35

¶36

continuous from 1954 and since no proceedings were undertaken to evict him, therefore, he was declared Sirdar.

¶37

10 . The Revisional Authority held that once ‘interchange’ was found to be illegal, therefore, ‘mortgage’ also become illegal. The Revisional Authority however held that on basis of illegal possession no Sirdari right would be given to petitioner. Sirdari right will be with original owner, i.e., Harihar Nath (Emphasis supplied) Respondent) and on ground of possession, petitioner would be Asami only under Section 21(Emphasis supplie d ) ) of Act, 1950.

¶38

11 . The above findings are self contrary. Revisional Authority on one hand held that petitioner could not get any right on basis of mortgage deed and on other hand declared him Asami on basis of mortgage deed only.

¶39

12 . As soon as ‘interchange’ was declared void, mortgage also become void, therefore, possession of petitioner become illegal which remained continued for many years and admittedly no proceedings for eviction was taken at behest of respondents and, therefore, its legal consequence would fall.

¶40

13 . In aforesaid circumstances Section 210 of Act, 1950 become important. According to said provision if a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a Bhumidhar or Asami or a decree for eviction obtained in such suit is not executed within the period of limitation, the person taking or retaining possession will become Bhumidhar or Asami as the case may be and legal consequence of it would fall.

¶41

14 . In the present case, since mortgage was declared to be illegal by all the authorities, therefore, application of Section 21(Emphasis supplie d ) ) of Act, 1950 was erroneously applied by Revisional Authority whereas Appellate Authority has rightly applied the

¶42

¶43

provisions of Section 210 of Act, 1950 and held that petitioner become Sirdar since no proceeding of eviction was undertaken. 15 . In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.08.1976 is hereby set aside and order of Appellate Authority dated 07.09.1974 is upheld. Order Date :-01.12.2023 AK

¶44

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdev v. Harihar Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev v. Harihar Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Aagyaram and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 10 Others

Gaus Ali Vs Ddc and Others

Akram Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Durgawati Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Puranmasi Vs D.D.C. and Others