Dismissed

Ram Chandra and Another Objection Filed v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024WRIB/7145/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition challenging orders rejecting revisions on property title disputes. Finding the lower courts correctly dismissed the petitioners' claims as the respondent had demonstrated exclusive ownership, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed due to lack of merit and failure of petitioners to demonstrate title to the disputed land.

Ram Chandra and Another Objection Filed Vs Deputy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30308

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 7145 of 1987

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Chandra And Another Objection Filed Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S. Chaudhary,R.V. Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶7

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.04.1975, passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as orders dated 19.02.1976 and 16.05.1980, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and order dated 21.03.1987, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation there by rejecting the revision of petitioner against order dated 16.05.1980.

¶8

The dispute in the present case has arisen on filing of objection by Avadh Behari, respondent no. 5, disputing the fact that the disputed property was ancestral holding and he was having 1/4th share but the name of Durga Prasad, father of Ram Prasad - respondent no. 4 was wrongly recorded over the entire khata. Similarly, Durga Prasad, father of respondent no. 4 (Ram Prasad) had also filed objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground that the claim of co-tenancy of other tenure holders i.e. Ram Chandra, Kalloo, Avadh Behari, Smt. Sundara, Smt. Kokila and Smt. Kalawati was wrongly recorded and he was the sole owner of the disputed khata.

¶9

The Condolidation Officer, Nidhasan, Kheri by means of order dated 15.04.1975, held that Avadh Behari was not cotenant with Durga Prasad, father of respondent no. 4 and other tenure holders could not prove their rights of co-tenancy. Against the order dated 15.04.1975, respondent no. 5 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was dismissed on 19.02.1976 holding that Durga Prasad was exclusive owner of the disputed property and Avadh Behari could not prove his case.

¶10

The petitioner has stated that he came to know about the order dated 19.02.1976, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) only on 27.02.1979 and on the very next day i.e. 01.03.1979, filed an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed on 16.05.1980 as being time barred. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) did not believe the averments made by the petitioner for condonation of delay with regard to the fact that firstly he was not aware of the proceedings and secondly that only after inspection of the records on 28.02.1979, he came to know about the said order and on the very next day he filed appeal, which has been dismissed merely on the ground of delay.

¶11

Against the order dated 16.05.1980, the petitioner preferred Revision No. 110 of 1986 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the revision preferred by Avadh Behari against order dated 19.02.1976 were clubbed and heard together. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of impugned order dated 21.03.1987 while dismissing both the revisions, and held that after perusal of the record returned finding that the land was recorded in the name of Durga Prasad and same continued to be recorded for eleven years and the name of Chatkau was recorded only after one year i.e. Fasli year 1376. In the khatauni of Fasli year 1346, Gata Nos. 178, 323 and 455, area 5082 hectares were recorded in the name of Chatkau who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioner from whom they have derived their right and title over the said land. Alongwith aforesaid gata nos. 178, 323 and 455, one other plot namely Gata No. 175/2 was recorded wherein name of Durga Prasad was entered. Merely because of the said entry the petitioner and Avadh Behari have staked their claim over the said plot.

¶12

The Deputy Director Consolidation has considered entire material and held that there is no doubt that the said land was recorded exclusively in the name of Durga Prasad for a very long span of time i.e. since Fasli year 1348 and there is no record indicating how the petitioners are entitled to the said land. On the other hand he found force in the contention made by Durga Prasad that the said land was purchased by him and not bequeathed upon him from his ancestors and accordingly the petitioners have no right or title over the said land.

¶13

Apart from the aforesaid facts, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also looked into the fact that the petitioners did not initiated any proceeding for extremely long length of time until initiation of consolidation proceedings over the said disputed property. It is for the aforesaid reasons that the Deputy

¶14

Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision of petitioners.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the contentions before this Court which were raised before the Courts below. Apart from the aforesaid facts, this Court has also examined the statement of Durga Prasad recorded before the Consolidation Officer on 04.04.1975. He had stated that he is in the exclusive ownership of the said land for the last 40-50 years while his father has died 30.35 years ago. He has admitted that the petitioners are real brothers but the disputed property was owned by him exclusively in exclusion of the rest of the family members and denied that the said disputed property was part of the joint property or part of Hindu Undivided Family.

¶16

After perusal of entire record, this Court is of the view that no error was committed by the Deputy Director Consolidation or Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The petitioners have been unable to demonstrate their rights over the disputed property while on the other hand Durga Prasad was able to demonstrate that the said land was owned by him exclusively.

¶17

Accordingly, this Court do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 A. Verma

¶19

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶20

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

Ram Chandra and Another Objection Filed v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra and Another Objection Filed v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 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

Similar cases

Shyam Lal and 2 Ors. Vs D.D.C. Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Lalluram Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Smt. Jyoti Kashyap Vs Estate Late. Smt. Shakuntala Lucknow and Another

Sultan Vs a.D.C.and Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shambhu Nath Vs Board of Revenue through Chairman Lucknow