Allahabad High Court
Kavita Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 February, 2024
Author: Siddhartha Varma
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:20741-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28658 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kavita Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Mehrotra, Manoj Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
(Per : Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the Joint Inquiry Report dated 22.5.2019 submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Moradabad and the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), District Moradabad in respect of a sale-deed executed on 4.7.1956 and registered on 25.7.1956, which was found to be registered as Document No. 1335, at Bahi No. 1, Jild No. 892 at Page Nos. 265 to 266 and was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Moradabad, be quashed.
2. A further prayer has been made that the petitioner be not proceeded against with regard to the registered document i.e. sale-deed dated 25.7.1956 in pursuance of the Inquiry Report dated 22.5.2019.
3. The petitioner has contended that a sale-deed was registered on 25.7.1956 in favour of one Vijay Kumar Sharma, the father of the petitioner herein and the vendor was one Smt. Prem Kunwar, widow of Prasadi Lal. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the name of Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma was mutated on 25.10.1956. Further it has been argued that after Vijay Kumar Sharma died on 13.2.2011, an application for mutation was moved by the petitioner which came to be dismissed on 6.11.2015 on the ground that the application was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He further submits that thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed on 20.1.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter states that an application was filed before the Consolidation Courts under Rule 109A(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, in which the name of the petitioner was entered in the plots in dispute being Plots No. 370/1, 370/2, 371/1, 371/2, 372, 373, 379/1 measuring total rakba 2.81 acre, Mauza Majhauli, Tehsil Sadar, District Moradabad. It has been submitted that the numbers of the plots were re-numbered and were also reduced in area during consolidation. The four plots now bore Nos. 280Ka, 282, 283, 289Ka). The petitioner has stated that the predecessor in the interest of intervenor, Sri Ram Bahadur and Sri Ram Kripal had though purchased the same plots in question on 16.9.1961, had no title in those plots as the plots had already been sold on 25.7.1956. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore states that no right was flowing to the predecessor in the interest of the intervenor on account of the sale deed dated 10.9.1961.
5. Since there was interference in the plots in question and the mutation etc. was being hindered the petitioner filed an original suit being Original Suit No. 148 of 2013 and in it releif was for a declaratory decree declaring that the sale-deed dated 16.9.1961 executed in favour of the predecessor in the interest of defendants in the suit was null and void. There was also a prayer for permanent injunction that the defendants in the suit may not disturb the possession of the petitioner. This suit came to be dismissed on 11.7.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition had come in the way of the civil suit and therefore, after the civil court had decreed the suit on the basis of the impugned Joint Inquiry Report dated 22.5.2019 the instant writ petition was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore has ultimately prayed that the Joint Inquiry Report dated 22.5.2019 be set aside.
6. Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Joint Inquiry Report which is in the form of the order dated 22.5.2019 could not have been passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e.Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Moradabad and the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), District Moradabad as they had neither the authority nor jurisdiction to conduct the said inquiries. They also had no authority to annul the sale-deed of the petitioner dated 25.7.1956. He has submitted that in the Registration Act even though, under Section 34 and 35, inquiry could be conducted before the Registration by the Registering Officer regarding the document to be registered, the registering authority had no power to cancel any particular document which had been registered. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court report in AIR 2018 Allahabad 210, Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P. and Ors. He has submitted that if any registered document had to be cancelled then the same could be done by filing a civil suit in a competent civil court and, therefore, only under the common laws a registered document could be cancelled.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if an order/report was without jurisdiction then the same could be quashed by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. For that purpose learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1955 SC 233, Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and others. Specifically, he has relied upon paragraph 21 of it. Still further he has submitted that registered sale-deed is proof enough of valid execution of a sale-deed and once it is registered it can only be set aside by the filing of a suit. For bolstering his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Jamila Begam v. Shami Mohd. (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 727.
8. Learned counsel for the intervenor, on the other hand, in reply submitted that the petitioner had, to begin with, no right over the property as the sale-deed, which the petitioner alleged was executed on 4.7.1956 and registered on 25.7.1956, was in fact, never in existence. He submits that there was no question of any presumption of the correctness of the document inasmuch as the presence of the proof of registration itself was doubted. He has submitted that there are reports to the effect that the sale-deed which was registered at Bahi No. 1, Jild No. 892,Document No. 1335,at Page Nos. 265 to 266, was in fact, some other document and by manipulation and interpolation the petitioner has got his sale-deed printed/transcribed on those pages. He submits that therefore, it was a clear case of forgery and the petitioner could not say that there was a sale-deed in existence and the registration of the same had been questioned and had thereafter been looked into by respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Moradabad and the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), District Moradabad. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra and Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the intervenor have submitted that if there was any cloud on the title of the petitioner then he should have filed a civil suit for the declaration of his title. For that purpose he relies upon a judgment reported in AIR 2014 SC 937 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. He specifically relies upon paragraph nos. 17 and 20, which have been reproduced hereinunder:-
"....17.This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title.InCorporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another(1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." InGuru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others(1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". InState of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others(1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."
20. We are of the view that even if the entries in the Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit land in question. Ext.X-1 is Classer Register of 1347 which according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of the plaintiff's vendor's property. We are of the view that these entries, as such, would not confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that the plaintiff's predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased. The only document that has been produced before the court was the registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 of their predecessor in interest, wherein, admittedly, the suit land in question has not been mentioned."
9. Learned counsel for the intervenor states that in the case cited above, cloud had been cast on the title on the basis of wrong revenue entries and the plaintiff had filed a civil suit and it was held by the Supreme Court that the suit for declaration definitely lay. Further learned counsel for the intervenor had relied upon AIR 2015 Allahabad 174and had submitted that whenever there is an invasion amounting to denial of title, it gives a fresh right to the petitioner to file a suit and he can always file a suit for declaration in his favour. Similarly, he has relied upon a judgment reported in AIR1984 Karnataka 153 and has submitted that suit may be instituted under the provisions of Specific Relief Act against the persons denying title of the plot. Learned counsel for the intervenor therefore, has submitted that when the cloud was cast on the title of the petitioner he should have filed a civil suit for declaration of his own rights and if any document/order/entry was coming in his way then by leading of the evidence he could have got the report/inquiry falsified.
10. Learned counsel for the intervenor has submitted that the petitioner had erroneously come to the High Court with a prayer for setting aside of the inquiry report dated 22.5.2019. He has submitted that the setting aside of the inquiry report would demand leading of evidence and that cannot be conveniently done by a Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the intervenor, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra further had submitted that a perusal of the order under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act dated 6.11.2015 definitely shows that it contained a finding that the land which was subject matter of dispute i.e. plot nos. 370/1, 370/2, 371/1, 371/2, 372, 373, 379/1 measuring total area 2.81 acre was subjected to consolidation and the names of the predecessors in the interest of intervenor were entered. He has submitted that once consolidation operations intervened and there was an opportunity to the persons whose names were not entered then any litigation thereafter was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
11. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the intervenor heavily relied upon Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which is reproduced hereinunder:-
"49. Bar to civil Courts jurisdiction. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of right of tenure-holder in respect of land lying in an area, for which a[notification] has been issued[under sub-section (2) of Section 4] or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act :
[Provided that nothing in this section shall preclude the Assistant Collector from initiating proceedings under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in respect of any land, possession over which has been delivered or deemed to be delivered to aGaon Sabhaunder or in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]"
12. Learned counsel for the intervenor further has submitted that if the petitioner is still to get his rights declared then he can always under the civil laws file a civil suit for the declaration of his right under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. He can lead all evidence which would enable him to establish that he had a right and title over the property in dispute.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are definitely of the view that the writ petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Sections 34 of the Registration Act, has contented that once a document regarding the transfer of immovable property is registered, no inquiry with regard to the same can be conducted by the Registering Authority, subsequent to the registration. In the instant case, the allegations and the consequent findings are that the alleged sale deed dated 25.07.1956 had never existed and the same had been interpolated in the records of the Sub-Registrar in place of some pre-existing registered sale deed. Since, the existence of the sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner herein was not found to be in existence and the petitioner has failed to produce the original sale deed, therefore, on the complaints received, the District Magistrate concerned had directed the inquiry. Thereupon, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had carried out the inquiry and had found that the sale deed which is dated 25.07.1956 was never in existence and only by interpolation in some pre-existing deed, this sale deed had been created in favour of the father of the petitioner herein. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court where such a fact had been established with regard to the non existence of any particular document then the bar of Section 34 of the Registration Act would not apply.. Therefore, on receipt of such complaints the inquiry conducted by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
15. The petitioner as we have seen was aggrieved by the cloud cast on his title. He had filed a suit but the suit was only for declaration that the sale-deed registered on 16.9.1961 be declared null and void. He had not filed any civil suit for the declaration of his rights. The law of the land is settled that whenever there is a cloud cast on the title of a person and he claims title then for that purpose he has to file a civil suit and would necessarily lead evidence for the declaration of his right.
16. In the instant case, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief as when the cloud was cast on his title he had not filed any suit for the declaration of his own rights. Further, we as a Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot permit the parties to lead evidence here in the High Court for seeing as to whether the inquiry report was based on proper evidence. Had it been an open and shut case where no evidence had to be led then of course, the High Court could have looked into the facts as to whether the order/inquiry report which had declared the entries in the registration register as fabricated was based on correct facts. But in the instant case there are many surrounding circumstances which need to be establish by leading of evidence. Under such circumstances, we consider that no interference is warranted and we do not think it to be a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
17. We find that the petitioner's original suit bearing Suit No. 148 of 2014 was dismissed and the petitioner has already filed a First Appeal bearing First Appeal No. 131 of 2023. None of the findings as have been arrived at in this judgment would affect the merits of the First Appeal. It may be decided on its own merits.
18. It may also be noted that we have not passed any order on the merits of the report dated 22.5.2019, which is under challenge.
Order Date :- 6.2.2024 S.A. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)