Dismissed

Hari Prasad Maurya v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024/77/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a civil review application seeking to revisit a writ judgment that denied an ancestral property co-tenancy claim. The court held that previous consolidation proceedings created separate rights, disproving the ancestral nature alleged by the applicant, and found no error on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Hari Prasad Maurya Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47175

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 77 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hari Prasad Maurya Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad,Shashi Kant Mishra,Vijai Bahadur Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present review petition has been preferred for review of the judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 passed by this Court in Writ B No. 461 of 2024.

¶7

Learned counsel for review applicant, Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma, assisted by Shri Durga Prasad, learned counsel who had represented the respondent no. 2, in the writ petition has submitted that this Court has erred in giving a finding as far as paragraph-16 of the judgment is concerned.

¶8

It is further submitted that the petitioner was minor and when he had become major, he raised objection regarding the wrong entry made in the khatauni of 1359 fasli after the consolidation proceedings.

¶9

It is further submitted that after the demise of Buddhiram (issueless), the grandson of Sahai, the ancestral property would have gone to the families of Zudawan, to whom respondent no. 2 belongs and to Lochan, to whom the petitioners belong in place of vesting only in favour of family of Lochan, as the property was ancestral.

¶10

The said issue has been dealt with and discussed in detail in paragraph nos. 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment with a specific finding that in 1301 fasli, all the properties including the disputed one were recorded in the name of Sahai, the petitioners and respondent no. 2 are descendants of Sahai and belong to the same family. It is also clear that in the previous round of consolidation proceedings, different khataunis were separately prepared in the name of different heirs of Sahai after his demise, distributing the different chaks which were thus distributed amongst his heirs as finds recorded in khatauni of 1359 fasli. In the result, it no more remained an ancestral property and separate rights were created in the names of Khatedaars.

¶11

The relevant extract of judgment which is to be reviewed in the present review petition is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

"13. The position which emerges out in the present case is that from the records as discussed by the Consolidation OfÏcer and the

¶13

Settlement OfÏcer Consolidation, it is clear that in 1301 fasli, all properties including disputed one were recorded in the name of Sahai. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are decendants of Sahai and belong to the same family. It is also clear that in previous round of consolidation proceedings, different khataunis were separately prepared in the name of different heirs of Sahai after his demise, distributing the different chaks which were thus distributed amongst his heirs as finds recorded in khatauni of 1359 fasli. In the result, it no more remained an ancestral property and separate rights were created in the names of the khatedars. It may also be mentioned that all the relevant documents relating to distribution of properties of Sahai in separate khataunis were provided by none else than the respondent no. 2. In these facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 2 cannot extend his claim of co-tenancy with the petitioners on the basis of it being an ancestral property.

¶14

14. The predecessors of respondent no. 2 had also got their share separately and entered in the khatauni separately from the same property. If the argument of counsel for the respondent no. 2 is accepted, then the respondents should give rights and share to the petitioners in the land which is entered in the khatauni in the name of predecessors of respondent no. 2. In the order of the Consolidation OfÏcer that the share was distributed separately and thereafter, the entry was made in the khatauni which is not disputed by the respondents anywhere even before the revisional court.

¶15

15. The learned revisional court erred in totally ignoring the above facts as discussed in the orders of Consolidation OfÏcer and Settlement OfÏcer Consolidation and has wrongly drawn an inference of it being an ancestral property merely on the basis of Shijra accepted by the petitioners."

¶16

Once the judgment has been passed considering all the arguments and aspects of the matter, in review, the matter will not be opened for re-hearing afresh as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

¶17

The review petition is devoid of merit hence dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 DiVYa

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hari Prasad Maurya v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Prasad Maurya v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Prema Devi Vs Sri Shri Kishna Agrawal

Reena Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Nobal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development and Anr.

M/S Buckeye Machines P LTD.D-46-48 Industrial Estate Vs Canara Bank through Its Chairman and Managing Director and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Singh S/O Sri Jagdish Singh Vs Cooperative Tribunal U.P. Lko. and Ors.

Sarvesh Kumar Khare U/a 227 Vs Smt. Rashmi Srivastava and Ors.