Allahabad High Court
Radhey Lal vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 18 March, 2021
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 6 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 8054 of 2016 Petitioner :- Radhey Lal Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Barabanki And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kishor Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(1) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.7.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer Patranga, District Barabanki and the order dated 20.8.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki and the order dated 31.3.2015 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki.
(2) This writ petition was filed in the year 2016 and on the first date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter. Thereafter, on an application moved by the counsel for the petitioner also none appeared to press the application and the matter has come up in ordinary course today.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the originally recorded tenure holder of land in dispute was one Babadeen. He made out a registered Will on 28.9.1982 in favour of father of the petitioner Ram Lakhan as he had no son. After the death of late Babadeen, the petitioner filed a case under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act before the Nayab Tehsildar, Mawai. The Revenue Inspector, however, during the pendency of the said case recorded the name of respondent no.4- Jadura in P.A.-11 as Babadeen's widow. The father of the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 210 of U.P. L.A.R. Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was partly allowed and the case was remitted back to the court of Nayab Tehsildar, but the order passed on P.A.-11 was not set-aside. The father of the petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision before the Commissioner Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and during pendency of the revision the village was notified under Section 4 of the Consolidation Holdings Act. The proceedings of mutation was abated by the order dated 19.7.1991. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act on 16.1.1992 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. In the meantime, land had been sold off by the respondent no.4 to some other person. The purchaser filed a separate objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the basis of the sale deed. The land in dispute had been recorded in favour of the subsequent purchaser on 18.7.1992. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was rejected and his revision was also rejected.
(4) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 is not the widow of late Babadeen and that the petitioner had produced evidence before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to prove the will-deed executed in favour of Babadeen, but ignoring such evidence the appeal was rejected. It has been submitted that the respondent no.4 did not file any case at any stage showing that she was widow of late Babadeen. It was subsequent purchaser from Jadura who had filed objections on which the petitioner had also filed objections. It has been submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has summarily decided the three appeal even though the consolidation officer has not settled any issues with regard as to whether the respondent no.4 was indeed the widow of Babadeen and hence entitled to inherit the property of Babadeen.
(5) The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand appearing on behalf of State has pointed out that from the order passed in appeal that the appellate court took into account the fact that Ram Lakhan, father of the petitioner, had admitted before the mutation court i.e. Nayab Tehsildar in earlier litigation that he had no knowledge of the date of death of Babadeen. He further insisted that he had performed the last rites of Babadeen. The Consolidation Officer had also considered the will-deed produced by the petitioner and found that it has not been proved beyond doubt. The petitioner's father used to live in Haidergarh Tehsil but the will-deed was registered in Fatehpur Tehsil, whereas, it could have been registered at Ram Nagar or at Haidergarh which were adjacent to each other. The will-deed having not been proved in terms of standards laid down in Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, it could not be believed.
(6) On the other hand the respondent no.4, Smt. Jadura had been admitted as widow of Late Babadeen and had been shown as widow of Babadeen in the copy of Pariwar Register, in the Photo ID-Card and other official documents. The S.O.C. had taken into account the provisions of Section 169(1) of the UP Z.A.L.R. Act and the observations of the Court in the case of Smt. Rukhmani vs. DDC Sitapur, 2013 RD Page No. 628, that mere registration would not make the Will as proved beyond doubt. The execution of the Will and its registration must both be proved by the beneficiary. The Gram Pradhan, Gokul Prasad had admitted Jadura to be widow of Babadeen.
(7) The learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out from the observations made by the revisional court that in the basic year Khatauni No. 71, the name of Smt. Jadura, wife of late Babadeen had been mentioned in the revenue record. During the appellate stage not only evidence was taken, but cross-examination was also done by the parties of the witnesses produced on either side, and the appellate court having thrashed out the matter on merits, after considering all the evidence on record found, found no procedural illegality in the order of S.O.C. which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(8) This Court having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent as also gone through carefully the three orders impugned and concurrent findings recorded in favour of respondent no.4 from whom the respondent nos. 5 to 19 are said to have purchased the disputed land and being subsequent purchasers have been impleaded in this writ petition.
(9) This Court does not find any good ground to show interference in the orders impugned.
(10) In view of above, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021 Vikas/-