Dismissed

Jamuna Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024/841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders by consolidation authorities affirming previous decisions on property rights. The high court held that the authorities correctly relied on a civil court decree cancelling the petitioner's sale deed. The petition was dismissed as the authorities were bound by the civil court's decision on title, which remains pending on merits for further challen

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed with no immediate correction of consolidation records granted.

Jamuna Prasad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58268

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 841 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jamuna Prasad Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

¶7

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been affirmed so also the order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the Consolidation Officer.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property-in-question belongs to one Sri Kallu s/o Dorey. It is also submitted that Kallu had executed an unregistered Will dated 11.05.1989 in favour of Sohan Das in whose favour mutation order came to be passed on 24.12.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the property in the year 2006 from Sohan Das. However, in the interregnum, the private respondent no.4 Brij Lal instituted a suit before the civil court assailing the sale deed dated 10.10.2006 executed by the Sohan in favour of the petitioner. The said suit came to be decreed through exparte against the present petitioner and his predecessor Sohan Das by means of judgment and decree dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division).

¶9

It is further submitted that the name of Brij Lal who had instituted the suit for setting aside of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner by moving an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the court concerned. In the interim period, the proceedings which were pending before the consolidation authorities were taken up and the name of Brij lal s/o Kallu came to be recorded. This was assailed by the petitioner before the consolidation authorities who has dismissed the appeal in the revision primarily on the ground

¶10

that the basis of petitioner's claim is the sale deed executed by Sohan Das in favour of the petitioner which by means of the judgment and decree 29.01.2015 passed by the competent civil court has been cancelled.

¶11

Submission is that on one hand the sale deed in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled but the private respondent no.4-Brij Lal is none other Maiku s/o Gayadeen who had impersonating himself as Brij Lal s/o Kallu. It is urged that this aspect of matter requires adjudication and this has not been noticed by the consolidation authorities. It is further submitted that under Order 9 Rule 13 is allowed then the case would have a different issue and the basis which has been taken by the consolidation authorities would evaporate.

¶12

It was further submitted that at least the consolidation authorities should have considered the contention of the petitioner in so far as the defence taken by the petitioner that Maiku s/o Gayadeen has been impersonating himself as Brij lal s/o Kallu and this has not been appropriately considered. In such circumstances, it is urged that the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities require to be set aside.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed by the petitioner that the D.D.C had passed the order dated 30.11.2023. This is based primarily on the ground that the alleged sale deed of the petitioner in the year 2006 has been cancelled by means of the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2015. The fact whether his application under Order 9 Rule 13 is allowed or not will impact the case and even if Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is allowed even then the suit will still remain to be contested on merits. It is only upon the decision of the civil court on merits as to whether the sale deed has been cancelled or not will affect the case of the parties.

¶14

In case, if the petitioner succeed, needless to say he will always have the remedy of getting records corrected in terms of the judgment passed by the civil court relating to decree of cancellation. As far as the orders passed by the consolidation authorities is concerned i.e. thus, based primarily on the ground that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled if ultimately any change takes place upon the decision of the suit on merits naturally the same would govern the rights of the parties and the petitioner would have ample opportunity to get rights corrected in accordance with law and to that extend the order of the consolidation will have to follow the decisions of the suit.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons and for the observations made above, the petition, at this stage, this Court does not find any merit accordingly it is dismissed.

¶16

It is also made clear that any observation made by this Court shall not come in the way of the parties who are contesting the proceedings before the civil court relating sale deed of year 2006.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.8.2024 Harshita

¶18

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

Jamuna Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamuna Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri 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

Puneet Ji Puri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Saiyed Zaiuddin Husain Vs Board of Revenue,U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Ram Piyare @ Ram Piyare Prajapati Vs Upziladhikari (Nyayik), Tehsil Gauriganj, Amethi and Another

Tripunayak Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Ram Sahai Kashyap Vs Consolidation Officer, Gauriganj, Amethi

Smt. Nirmala Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others