Allahabad High Court
Smt. Raj Mati Devi vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 2 August, 2021
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1112 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Mati Devi Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Ghazipur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadhu Sharan Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard Sri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent no.1 and perused the record.
2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeded to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice to respondent no.2.
3. Petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 (Annnexure-9) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent no.1) in Revision No.0189 of 2019 under Section 48 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'), confirming the order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure-5) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghazipur (in brevity 'S.O.C.').
4. Question involved in the present writ petition relates to the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, under which name of Vendee (petitioner herein) was ordered to be recorded in the Revenue Record in pursuance of the order dated 10.07.2002 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'A.C.O.') in place of Roop Chand (respondent no.2), who has challenged the entry on the ground that he has never executed sale deed dated 31.10.2001 (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner.
5. Grievance of the petitioner is that the S.O.C. has illegally remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.') to decide the matter afresh on the ground of violation of Section 168 A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity 'UPZALR Act') and on the point of correctness of factum in respect of execution of sale deed dated 31.10.2001 by respondent no.2, who has denied said execution. Order of the S.O.C. has illegally been affirmed by the D.D.C. (respondent no.1) without applying his mind and without considering the case of the petitioner.
6. Dispute giving rise to this writ petition is that Roop Chand (respondent no.2) was a recorded tenure holder over Plot no.1285. Three sets of persons namely, (i) Shyam Narayan (ii) Smt. Rajmati Devi & (iii) Bharat and Others, have claimed their right and title over the aforesaid property of respondent no.2 on the basis of registered sale deeds, said to have been executed by respondent no.2 on different dates, in their favour. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she has claimed her right and title on the basis of registered sale deed dated 31.10.2001 (Annexure-1), said to have been executed by the recorded tenure holder, Roop Chand (respondent no.2), in her favour, who has moved application under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act registered as Case no.228. Aforesaid case was decided vide order dated 10.07.2002 passed by the A.C.O. directing to record name of the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed dated 31.10.2001 in place of recorded tenure holder Roop Chand (respondent no.2). When respondent no.2 came to know about the aforesaid entry in favour of the Vendee (petitioner), feeling aggrieved, he has filed an appeal dated 20.10.2008, against the order dated 10.07.2002, challenging the legality and validity of the sale deed dated 31.10.2001 (Annexure-1), which was got executed in favour of petitioner as well as against the order dated 10.07.2002 passed by the A.C.O., on the ground that he had never executed such sale deed, as claimed by the petitioner with respect to the plot in question. It has also been alleged in the memo of appeal that in pasing the order dated 10.07.2002, the provisions as enshrined under Rule 25 A of the U.P. Consolidation Holding Rules, 1954 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Rules') has not been complied with. Apart that, sale deed in question is barred under the "Principles of Fragmentation" as embodied under Section 168 A of the UPZALR Act. Aforesaid appeal was allowed by the S.O.C. vide order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure-5). It is important to note here that all the three Vendees, who are deriving their right and title over the property in question on the basis of registered sale deed, said to have been executed by Roop Chand (respondent no.2), had filed three separate appeals, which were decided by a common order dated 30.11.2009 passed by S.O.C.
7. Feeling aggrieved, a common revision dated 11.12.2009 was filed by all the three Vendors. The D.D.C. has allowed the revision vide order dated 06.01.20211 and set aside the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the S.O.C. Feeling aggrieved, Roop Chand (respondent no.2) has filed a writ petition registered as Writ B No.6235 of 2011, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-8) and the matter was remitted back to the D.D.C. (respondent no.1) for deciding the revision afresh. In pursuance of order dated 08.07.2019 passed by this Court, respondent no.1 has reconsidered the merits of the revision and dismissed the same vide order dated 16.03.2021, which is under challenge in the instant petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 16.03.2021, respondent no.1 has illegally dismissed the revision, which is liable to be quashed. By impugned order, respondent no.1 has illegally affirmed the order passed by the Appellate Court without deciding the merits of appeal filed before the S.O.C. Order under challenge in this petition is quite illegal, against the fact as well as provisions of law, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without appreciating the evidences available on the record in its right perspective.
9. Perused the record on board and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Present writ petition has been preferred only by Smt. Rajmati Devi who is one of the vendee of Roop Chand (respondent no.2). It emerges from the record that respondent no.2 was a recorded tenure holder over the property in question i.e. Plot no.1285. Petitioner, Rajmati Devi had got her name recorded over the area measuring 0-6-0 out of area 1-12-0 of Plot no.1285 in a proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, vide order dated 10.07.2002 passed by the A.C.O. in Case No.228. When the respondent no.2 came to know about the aforesaid order passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, he has preferred an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2009 and matter was remitted before the C.O. to decide the matter afresh in light of five issues, which have been framed by the S.O.C. in his order. Aforesaid order was ultimately affirmed by the D.D.C. vide impugned order dated 16.03.2021. The S.O.C., while condoning the delay, has discussed the matter in detail to form a prima facie opinion with respect to the genuineness of the sale deed said to have been executed by the respondent no.2 in the light of different provisions of law and came to a conclusion that the sale deed in question, is challenged by the vendor raising several questions about its legality and validity, which should properly be examined/scrutinized by the competent court. In case, the entry and the alleged sale deed has attained finality, then the right of the vendor will be barred by the provisions of law. The S.O.C. has condoned delay in filing the appeal and framed five issues, which are being quoted below, to be decided by the C.O. :-
"1. क्या विक्रेता रूपचन्द द्वारा क्रेता श्यामनरायन के पक्ष मे किया गया विक्रय यी०पी०जेड०ए एण्ड एल०आर०एक्ट की धारा 157 ए से आच्छादित है?
2. क्या रूपचन्द ने स्वेच्छा एवं अपनी मर्जी से श्यामनरायन एवं राजमती को विक्रय किया?
3. वाद विन्दु सं० 1 व 2 के धनात्मक अथवा ऋणात्मक होने पर क्या प्रभाव होगा?
4. श्यामनरायन द्वारा भरत के पक्ष में किया गया नामान्तरण वाद बिन्दु सं० 1 व 2 के ऋणात्मक सिद्ध होने पर क्या प्रभाव रखेगा?
5. च०अ० उक्त विवादकों का निस्तारण सभी पक्षों से साक्ष्य लेने के उपरान्त गुण दोष के आधार पर इस आदेश की एक प्रति प्राप्त होने की तिथि से दो माह के भीतर करें, तब तक पक्ष स्थल पर यथास्थिति बनाये रखे।"
11. After examining the matter in detail, the D.D.C. (respondent no.1) has also reached at the same conclusion that the legality and validity of the sale deed, said to have been executed by the respondent no.2, is under cloud, inasmuch as, vendor has challenged execution of the sale deed and same is required to be examined by the competent court. It is also observed by the D.D.C. that before passing order in proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act the provisions as embodied under rule 25 A of U.P.C.H. Rules have not been fulfilled. He has shown his concurrence with the order passed by the S.O.C. While dismissing the revision, the D.D.C. (respondent no.1) was of the view that the S.O.C. has decided the appeal after considering all the documentary evidences available on the record and has found no justification for interfering with the order passed by the S.O.C.
12. After careful perusal of the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the D.D.C. (respondent no.1), I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the order passed by the D.D.C. as well as the remand order passed by the S.O.C., so as to warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The S.O.C. and the D.D.C. (respondent no.1), both have decided the matter concurrently in favour of the vendor (respondent no.2) and have rightly remitted the matter before the C.O. for an examination of genuineness of the sale deed, said to have been executed by the respondent no.2, who has denied the execution of the said sale deed.
13. Present petition is devoid of merits, and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date : 02.08.2021 Manish Himwan