Allahabad High Court
Smt. Basmati vs D.D.C. And Others on 6 November, 2019
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 58554 of 2011 Petitioner :- Smt. Basmati Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Saran,Awadhesh Kumar Singh,Babban Singh,Bairister Singh,R. Singh,R.V. Pandey,Suresh Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.P.S.Yadav,P.R.Maurya,Rajendra Singh Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 6.
The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata Nos. 216 and 419. Gauri had two sons, namely, Bodhan and Sita Ram. Basanti was the widow of Bodhan. Sita Ram had two sons, namely, Ram Raksha and Ram Adhar who have been impleaded as respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition. Shakuntala Devi, i.e., respondent no. 4 is the wife of Ram Adhar and Basmati, i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition is the wife of Ram Raksha. In the basic year records, Basanti Devi and Sita Ram were recorded as 'Sirdar' of the disputed plots. During the consolidation proceedings, Case No. 7053 was registered under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') and the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 3.12.1977 directed that the petitioner be recorded as 'Sirdar' of some plots included in Khata No. 216 and respondent no. 4 be recorded as 'Sirdar' of some plots included in Khata No. 419 and the rest of the plots included in Khata Nos. 216 and 419 be divided between respondent nos. 5 and 6 each having 1/2 share in the same. It has been stated in the writ petition that the aforesaid case was registered on the objections filed by respondent no. 4 and the order was passed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The order dated 3.12.1977 was set-aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 3.5.2011 passed in Appeal No. 2197/130 filed by respondent no. 4 under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 and through his aforesaid order, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed that the entries in the basic year records relating to Khata Nos. 216 and 419 be retained with Basanti Devi having 1/2 share in the aforesaid khatas and the joint share of respondent nos. 5 and 6 was also held to be 1/2. The order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 23.9.2011 passed in Revision No. 897 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.5.2011. The orders dated 3.5.2011 and 23.9.2011 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
The petitioner and respondent no. 4 are the wives of the recorded tenure holders who jointly had 1/2 share in Khata Nos. 216 and 419 while Basanti, i.e., the widow of Bodhan also had 1/2 share in the disputed plots. The order dated 3.12.1977 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in effect, conferred sirdari rights on the petitioner and respondent no. 4. It is alleged that the said order was passed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. However, it is evident from the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the compromise was signed only by Sita Ram and Bodhan and not by the petitioner or respondent no. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the compromise was not in accordance with Rule 25-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. Further, the petitioner and respondent no. 4 could not claim any right in the disputed plots during the lifetime of Sita Ram, i.e., their father-in-law or during the lifetime of their husbands. The rights conferred on the petitioner and respondent no. 4 through the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer did not vest in them under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and, therefore, the compromise acknowledging the aforesaid rights could not have been accepted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the order dated 3.12.1977 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was without jurisdiction. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgment of this Court reported in Shiv Prasad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (2006) 101 RD 624.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 3.12.1977 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the objections filed by respondent no. 4 and, therefore, Appeal No. 2197/130 which was filed by respondent no. 4 was not maintainable as respondent no. 4 was not aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid argument in as much as in the appeal, the respondent no. 4 had stated that she was mislead into believing that her rights would be recognized in both Khata Nos. 216 and 419 and the Assistant Consolidation Officer had recognized her rights only in relation to Khata No. 419. According to the averments made in the appeal, the respondent no. 4 was aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and, therefore, the appeal was maintainable. Apart from the aforesaid, the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was without jurisdiction and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to set-aside the orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, even if there is any illegality in the same, only to restore an illegal order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 Satyam