Disposed

Rajendra Prasad and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 10 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024WRIB/895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjourned a writ petition challenging orders regarding land consolidation. The petitioner claimed joint property rights in Khata No. 253, arguing the lower court erred in not addressing evidence supporting this claim. The court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and granted an interim status-quo order pending further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Interim status quo order granted; counter affidavit directed within four weeks; further proceedings adjourned to 24th October, 2024.

Rajendra Prasad and 4 Others vs Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 895 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad And 4 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tewari,Sheo Pal Singh,Vishwakant Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Kumar Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of State-respondents has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Sudhir Kumar Misra, learned counsel had already put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4 on caveat, however, he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the remaining private respondents nos. 3, 5 to 11 and the same is taken on record.

¶6

Under challenge is the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur whereby the revision of the petitioners was dismissed, as a result, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 20th January, 2024 has been affirmed which adversely affected the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 11.12.2023 in favour of the petitioners.

¶7

The submission is that the property in question i.e. Khata No. 253 is said to be the joint property. The common ancestor of the parties was Jokhu who was survived by his two sons Matau and Prasad. The private respondents are claiming rights from the branch of Matau whereas the petitioners are claiming from the branch of Prasad.

¶8

It is further urged that the relevant evidences were filed before the Consolidation Officer indicating that the property was joint and in so far as one of the other co-sharer namely Ram Deo S/o Matau is concerned, he already got his 1/4th share separated while the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 was in force.

¶9

It is urged that after the death of Jokhu, the property would naturally devolve on his two sons namely Matau and Prasad and it is in this context that the petitioners being the son of Bhudhar (son of Prasad) claimed to have half share.

¶10

It is for the said reason that Ram Deo who had got his 1/4th share separated as the other 1/4th share was of his brother Algu

¶11

who was representing the branch of Matau. Consistent records as well as receipts for irrigation were filed which indicated that the name of Ram Kripal Son of Bhudhar was recorded and he was also found in possession at the time of commencement of consolidation operations and his name was duly mentioned in Form CH-2-A.

¶12

It is further urged that merely because in one of the Khatas, the name of the predecessors in interest was not recorded would not mean that the property was not joint whereas in respect of other Khatas, division were done and the petitioners got their right which was not disputed by the private respondents. However, in so far as the present Khata No. 253 is concerned, the private respondent disputed the family tree, however, could not indicate the source of acquisition which was as per the petitioner to be joint. The findings reversed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is based on mere surmises, inasmuch as, the evidence which was considered by the Consolidation Officer while recording the findings were not touched nor reversed.

¶13

In such circumstances, it is urged that the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are not sustainable in law.

¶14

Sri Mishra, learnd counsel for the private respondents submits that several Khatas were separate and they were acquired by the respective parties and it is for the said reason that there was no dispute. In so far as Khata No. 253 is concerned, this was the self-acquired property of the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents and in such circumstances, the petitioners would have no right therein and this aspect has been considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while reversing the findings of the Consolidation Officer.

¶15

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the respondents to indicate the source of acquisition in case if it is the case of the private respondents that the property was self-acquired to which he submits that he requires time.

¶16

The matter apparently requires consideration.

¶17

Since all the private respondents are represented by Sri Sudhir Misra, learned counsel, hence, no fresh notice is required.

¶18

Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall have ten days thereafter to file

¶19

response/rejoinder affidavit.

¶20

As an interim measure, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status-quo, as it exists today and none of the parties shall alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the disputed Khata.

¶21

List this matter on 24th October, 2024 showing the name of Sri Sudhakar Misra, as counsel for the private respondents .

¶22

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Asheesh

¶23

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

Rajendra Prasad and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 10 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

Jitendra Kumar Mangla vs State of U.P. and Another

Hardesh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyanendra Sachan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Yash Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Informant vs State of Upand Another

Abhinay Verama vs State of U.P. and Another