Virendra Pratap Singh and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Virendra Pratap Singh and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, claiming rights in Khata No. 846 (ba) by succession/inheritance from their maternal grandmother late Smt. Balraj Kunwari, have any case to a share therein when the patta granted by the Zamindar to respondent no. 2, the compromise and the preliminary decree dated 13.07.1951 were never challenged and have not been set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Once it is admitted that the petitioners had not challenged the patta granted in favour of respondent no. 2, the compromise and the preliminary decree, they have no case to any share in Khata No. 846 (ba), entered in the revenue records in the name of late Balraj Kunwari, on the basis of succession/inheritance, until or unless the patta, the compromise and the preliminary decree are challenged and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The decision proceeds on the recorded position that the alleged illegal patta, the compromise and the preliminary decree in the suit under Section 49 read with Section 59 of the Act, 1939 were never challenged by the petitioners before any competent Court and the matter attained finality.

Key takeaways

No liberty is required to be given to the petitioners to challenge the patta, compromise and preliminary decree; in case any remedy is available to them under the law, it is always open to be availed.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Consolidation - Revision under S. 48, Consolidation of the Holdings Act, 1953 - Writ petition against revisional order dated 01.06.1981 (Revision No. 5947/4014/3214/830, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh) dismissed. Petitioners claimed Khata No. 846 (ba) (area 21 bighas 17 biswas), recorded in the name of their maternal grandmother late Smt. Balraj Kunwari, by succession/inheritance; she surrendered the land on 18.01.1951, whereafter the Zamindar granted a patta to respondent no. 2 (Sheetla Prasad, since deceased, substituted by heirs O.P. Nos. 2/1-2/4). In a suit under Sections 49 and 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, a compromise signed by the petitioners' father on behalf of the minor brothers (cf. S. 29, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890) resulted in a preliminary decree dated 13.07.1951 surrendering the khata land to the respondents. Counsel for petitioners conceded that consolidation authorities cannot look into proceedings/orders under the Act, 1939, and that the patta, compromise and preliminary decree were never challenged before any competent court, the matter having attained finality. Held: until the patta, compromise and preliminary decree are challenged and set aside, the petitioners have no case to any share in the khata. Prayer for liberty to challenge them declined as unnecessary; any remedy available under law left open. (Manish Kumar, J.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; decided 15.4.2024.)

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29860

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2983 of 1981

Petitioner :- Virendra Pratap Singh And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Pratapgarh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.Misra,Adnan Ahmad,D.K.Misra,H.A.Husaini,K.P.Singh,M.K.Gupta,Manish Mishra,Raghaw Ram Upadhyay,Rajesh Kr. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.K.Srivastava,C S C,Dhiraj Chaurasiya,Dinesh Kr. Mishra,Om Hari Tripathi,Sri Ram

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 01.06.1981 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Pratapgarh in Revision No. 5947/4014/3214/830 filed under Section 48 of the Consolidation of the Holdings Act, 1953.

The revision was preferred by opposite party no. 2 Sheetla Prasad (now deceased). After the demise of O.P. No. 2, his legal heirs have been substituted in the present writ petition as O.P No.s 2/1 to 2/4.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the dispute is with regard to Khata No. 846 (ba), area 21 bighas and 17 biswas which was entered in the name of late Smt. Balraj Kunwari, the maternal grandmother of the petitioners as well as the respondents. The petitioners are claiming their rights on the basis of succession/inheritence before the Consolidation authorities whereas the respondents particularly late Sheetla Baksh Singh was claiming their rights on the basis of patta granted in his favour by the Zamindar after the surrender was made by late Balraj Kunwari.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the patta was granted, if any, as alleged by respondent no. 2 is against the statutory provision i.e. Section 82 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1939).

It is further submitted that the compromise entered into between the respondent no. 1 and other petitioners who were minor, so their father had entered into an agreement/compromise on behalf of his minor children, was also not tenable in the eyes of law as per Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 where the guardian could not enter into any compromise alienating the

property of a minor without prior permission of the Court. All these facts were considered by the Consolidation OfÏcer and the Settlement OfÏcer of Consolidation and passed the orders in favour of the petitioners.

But the Revisional Court had turned down the orders/judgments passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer and the Settlement OfÏcer of Consolidation ignoring the patta granted in favour of the respondents and the compromise entered into between the parties were against the statutory provision and dehors the rules.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that patta was granted by the Zamindar in favour of respondent no. 2 after the land was surrendered by the tenure holder late Balraj Kunwari. The petitioners had never ever challenged the same till date.

It is further submitted that the case filed under Section 49/50 of the Act, 1939, the compromise was filed and on the basis of which a preliminary decree was prepared on 13.07.1951, the petitioners had never filed any case or appropriate application in the suit filed under Section 49/50 of the Act, 1939 challenging the compromise and the preliminary decree.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the records of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that it is undisputed fact that Khata No. 846 (ba) was in the name of late Balraj Kunwari in the revenue records. The surrender was made by late Smt. Balraj Kunwari on 18.01.1951 and after the surrender of land of Khata no. 846 (ba), the Zamindar granted the patta in favour of respondent no. 2. The suit was preferred by the petitioner under Section 49 and 59 of the Act, 1939. Section 49 provides Division of holdings and Section 59 provides suit by tenants by declaration of rights or share on the basis of inheritance/succession. In the said suit, a compromise was filed between the petitioner no. 1, who was major and on behalf of his minor brothers i.e other petitioners, his father had signed the compromise and in pursuance of which, a preliminary decree was prepared on 13.07.1951. By the said compromise, the said land of Khata No. 846 (ba) was surrendered in favour of respondents.

The petitioners had challenged the validity of the patta granted by Zamindar in favor of respondent no. 2 and the compromise in the consolidation proceedings while filing their objections under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953. On being asked, a particular query from the learned counsel for petitioner whether the patta granted by the Zamindar in favour of respondent no. 2 under the provisions of the Act, 1939 and the compromise filed between the parties in the suit filed under Section 49 read with Section 59 of the Act, 1939 by the petitioners

could be seen by the Consolidation authorities in the consolidation proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly and candidly stated that under the consolidation proceedings, the consolidation authorities cannot look into the proceedings initiated and the orders passed under the Act, 1939 and on being asked further, he has very fairly submitted before the competent court or authorities that alleged illegal patta granted in favour of respondent no. 2 and the compromise and the preliminary decree in the suit filed under Section 49 read with Section 59 has never been challenged by the petitioners before any competent Court and the matter attained finality.

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, once it is admitted to the petitioners that they had not challenged the patta granted in favour of respondent no. 2 and the compromise and the preliminary decree, then they have no case of any share in khata No. 846 (ba) which was entered into in the revenue records in the name of late Balraj Kunwari, on the basis of succession/inheritance, being their maternal grandmother until or unless the patta , the compromise and the preliminary decree has been challenged and set aside.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed .

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for giving liberty to challenge the patta , compromise and preliminary decree, for such, no such liberty is required to be given and in case any remedy is available to the petitioners under the law, it is always open for them to avail the same.

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 DiVYa

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