Dismissed

Smt. Pushpa Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order upholding the private respondent’s substitution as the legal representative of the deceased in mutation proceedings is interlocutory and does not finally determine rights. Consequently, a revision against such an order was impermissible, and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None entitled; petition dismissed for lack of maintainability.

Smt. Pushpa Gupta Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19272

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 244 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa Gupta Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ayodhya And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Pande,Virendra Bhatt

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Dr. R. S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Ankit Pande for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 as well as Shri V. P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 who has appeared on caveat.

¶8

The order under challenge in this petition is dated 12.01.2024 whereby the revision preferred under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been dismissed as a consequence the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer, Sadar, District Ayodhya has been afÏrmed.

¶9

The disputed property in question belonged to Anand Kumar who is said to have died in the year 1990. He was survived by his widow Suryapati. However, it is the case of the petitioner that Suryapati had re-married in the year 1996 and from her second marriage, she had a son. The petitioner claiming his rights on the basis of an unregistered Will sought mutation of his name after the death of Anand Kumar. On the other hand, the private respondent no.4 claims his right on the basis of a sale deed executed by Suryapati on 19.04.1997. The private respondent no.4 on the strength of the sale deed dated 19.04.1997, he too applied for mutation. A third application for mutation was also filed by Suryapati and it is stated that her application was moved subsequently i.e. after selling the property to the

¶10

private respondent no.4.

¶11

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that there were three applications for mutation under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was engaging the attention of the Consolidation OfÏcer, Sadar, District Ayodhya. Though the contest before the Consolidation OfÏcer as raised by the petitioner was that since Suryapati had inherited the property as widow of Anand Kumar who died in the year 1990 but after she remarried, she lost her rights and as such she had no right to sell the property to the private respondent no.4 whereas the petitioner claimed rights on the basis of the unregistered Will.

¶12

In the aforesaid backdrop, the matter was being considered by the Consolidation OfÏcer, however, Suryapati died on 25.04.2012. Upon the death of Suryapati, the petitioner made a claim before the Consolidation OfÏcer to the effect that since a legal heirs of Suryapati, namely her second husband and her son born from the second marriage were the legal heirs and representatives and as they have not been impleaded, therefore, the petition for mutation filed by Suryapati would abate.

¶13

This plea did not find favour with the Consolidation OfÏcer as he noticed that Suryapati had executed a sale deed in favour of the private respondent no.4 dated 19.04.1997 and till date, the said sale deed has not been set aside, accordingly since the private respondent no.4 was present and representing the said estate, the application of the petitioner for abating the proceedings was rejected by means of order dated 15.09.2021 as a result the private respondent no.4 was directed to be impleaded in place of Suryapati.

¶14

The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhaya who by means of the order of the impugned dated 12.01.2024 dismissed the revision holding that the order passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer was interlocutory in nature and no rights of the parties

¶15

have been finally determined which is yet to be decided by the Consolidation OfÏcer.

¶16

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant petition and Dr. R. S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dismissing the revision of the petitioner by holding that it was an interlocutory order is per se bad.

¶17

It is submitted that once it was brought on record and to the notice of the Consolidation OfÏcer that the deceased Suryapati had expired and she was survived by her second husband and a son born from the second marriage, they alone could be treated to be the legal heirs of the deceased and since they have not been impleaded the proceedings ought to abate and this order which determined the rights by treating the private respondent no.4 as the heir/legal representative of Suryapati could not be treated as an interlocutory order and therefore the Deputy Director of Consolidation has incorrectly dismissed the revision on the premise that the revision had been filed against an interlocutory order.

¶18

Dr. Pandey has further submitted that since there is no limitation provided under the Rules of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 and the provisions of Order 22 CPC are not strictly applicable, hence the private respondent could not be treated to be the legal heir/representative of deceased Suryapati.

¶19

The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶20

It is not disputed that the matter before the Consolidation OfÏcer is pending where the application for mutation filed by the petitioner so also by the private respondent no.4 is to be adjudicated on merits. The very fact that Suryapati had died and it is not disputed that she had executed a sale deed in favour of the private respondent no.4 who is an assignee, hence upon the death of Suryapati, the private respondent no.4 can be substituted for the purposes of

¶21

carrying on the proceedings to be taken to its logical conclusion as once Suryapati in her life time had already alienated the property in favour of the private respondent no.4, hence even though he may not be the legal heir, yet he can always be treated to be the legal representative representing the estate of deceased Suryapati. Thus, for the aforesaid limited purpose, if the Consolidation OfÏcer has permitted the private respondent no.4 to be substituted in place of Suryapati cannot be held to be bad. Nonetheless the order for substitution is only limited order and it does not determine finally the rights of the parties which in any case is to be adjudicated on merits.

¶22

It is in this context that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has noticed that the revision has been filed against an interlocutory order and this Court does not find that there is any fault in the reasoning given by the Revisional Court or the Consolidation OfÏcer. Hence the petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and is dismissed .

¶23

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 ank

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Pushpa Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and 9 Others

Smt. Reeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kesha Raji Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 12 Gonda District-Gonda and Another

Abdul Kayyoom and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs Ram Naresh and 2 Others

Amjad Ali Siddiqui vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and 4 Others