Allahabad High Court
Bhagwati Prasad Yadav And Ors. vs D.D.C. Gonda And Ors. on 21 February, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15449 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 26363 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bhagwati Prasad Yadav And Ors. Respondent :- D.D.C. Gonda And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mustafizul Haq,Danish Mujtaba Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Kumar,Surya Prakash Singh with Case :- WRIT - B No. - 26174 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mewa Lal Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Gonda And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Pande,Ankit Pande,Mukesh Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Girish Chandra Sinha,Surya Prakash Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
C.M.Application No. IA/8/2022 (Application for Substitution) in Writ - B No. 26174 of 2019 Heard.
Considering the contents of the affidavit filed in support of application, under consideration, this Court is of the view that the same is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is permitted to carry out the necessary substitution, as prayed for, during course of the day.
Order On Petition(s)
1. Heard Sri R.S.Pande, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Mohd. Mustafizul Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State as also Sri G.C.Sinha, Advocate, who appeared for Ram Vinod S/o Hanuman Prasad and Rishikesh Pathak S/o Late Sri Krishna Kumar (applicants of application for impleadment No. 175465 of 2021).
2. The issues involved in both the petition(s) are same as also the same orders passed by the authorities under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") have been challenged in both the petition(s), as such, both the petitions were clubbed together and are being decided by this common order.
3. In the petition(s), petitioner(s) have challenged the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda (in short "D.D.C.") and the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the respondent Nos.2-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda (in short "S.O.C.") and the order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Gonda (in short "C.O.").
4. Brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of petition(s), under consideration, are as under:-
(i) The claim of parties to the petition(s) relates to land indicated in Khata No. 98 of the Basic year Khatauni of Village-Badgaon, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Gonda, which, at the time of filing of the objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act of 1953, was recorded in the name of Ram Prasad (father of Bhagwati Prasad, Devi Prasad and Mahesh Prasad).
(ii) In Writ - B No. 26363 of 2019, Bhagwati Prasad is the petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos. 2-Smt. Sitapati and 3-Kanhaiya Lal are descendants of Devi Prasad and petitioner No.4-Smt. Aneeta Yadava widow of Harish Chandra Yadava, as appears from the record, is also the descendant of Devi Prasad.
(iii) Mahesh Prasad S/o Ram Prasad was impleaded as private respondent No.4 in both the petitions, under consideration and during pendency of the petitions, legal heirs of Mahesh Prasad have been substituted.
(iv) Before the C.O., Mewa Lal, petitioner in Writ - B No. 26174 of 2019, claimed his rights over the land in issue by preferring an application/objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953, registered as Case No. 1423.
(v) The objection of Mewa Lal was based upon the 'Will' executed on 13.09.1944 by Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithi Pal.
(vi) Before the C.O., predecessor-in-interest of petitioners in Writ - B No. 26363 of 2019 and private respondent No.4-Mahesh Prasad and the applicants of application for impleadment No. 175465 of 2021 namely Ram Vinod and Rishikesh Pathak namely Ram Prasad also preferred an application/objection claiming his rights over the land in issue indicated in Khata No. 98.
(vii) The claim of Ram Prasad was based upon the order dated 30.08.1954 passed by the Naib Tehsildar concerned, which reads as under:-
"gqDe Jheku ,0ih0 ikUMs uk;c rglhynkj egksn; xks.Mk ewy fefly uEcjh 1423 ekStk cM+xkWo QS0 30&8&54 bZ0 eqdnek nq#Lrh dkxtkr ekStk cM+xkWOkA jke izlkn iq= ykSVu vfgj lk0 cM+xkWOk] ijxuk o ft0 xks.Mk
----------++++oknh izfr v;ks/;k izlkn iq= cgksjh dqehZ lk0 cjfngk ijxuk rglhy o ftyk xks.Mk
------------izfroknh izkFkhZ dh nj[okLr gS fd Hkwfe ua0 66@40] 86@20] 250@31] 275@13] 293@28] 294@27] rFkk 297@27 ckdke ekStk cMxkWOk ij ml dk dCtk xr 4 lky ls gS ijarq dkxtkr esa izfroknh dk uke ntZ gSA vRk% nq#Lrh dh tkos ryoh QjhdSu dh xbZA okotwn rkehy dkQh izfroknh gkftj ugh vk;k ;g Hkwfe tehnkjh mUewyu {ksHk ds ckgj gS vkSj iz/kku dks ikVhZ cukus dk iz'u ugh mBrkA tehnkj fj;klr cyjkeiqj gS ftl dh jlhn yxku ckor lu~ 1360Q0 o 1361Q0 cdk; oknh nkf[ky fefly gSA lcwr esa oknh us ys[kiky o xokgku is'k fd,A bl ds vfrfjDRk bl lky 1361 Qlyh Hkh is'k fd;k bl ls izxV gksrk gS fd oknh dk dCtk xr dbZ o"kkZsa ls gSA vr% vkns'k gqvk fd fookfnr Hkwfe ds [kkrs ls v;ks/;k izlkn dk uke [kkfjt gksdj jke izlkn oYn ykSVu vfgj dk uke cgSfl;r dk'rdkj fteu 4 ekS:lh yxku bUnzkt [ksrkSuh ntZ dkxtkr gksA g0 viBuh;
,0ih0 ik.Ms;
30&8&1954"
(viii) Before the C.O. Mahesh Prasad was contesting the claim pertaining to land indicated in Khata No. 98 on behalf of Ram Prasad.
(ix) Ram Prasad executed a sale deed dated 25.11.2003 in favour of his own son namely Mahesh Prasad, during pendency of the proceedings before the C.O., which is apparent from the assertions made in Writ - B No. 26363 of 2019, according to which, Ram Prasad died on 26.07.2009 and also from the order(s) impugned.
(x) Mahesh Prasad S/o Ram Prasad on 20.06.2019 sold the land in issue to applicants of application for impleadment No. 175465 of 2021 namely Ram Vinod S/o Hanuman Prasad and Rishikesh Pathak S/o Late Krishna Kumar Pathak, as indicated in the application.
(xi) The applicants namely Ram Vinod and Rishikesh Pathak, to whom the land in issue was sold on 20.06.2019 by Mahesh Prasad (died on 04.04.2020 after putting in appearance before this Court as caveator), are the persons to whom hearing should be provided and in view of above, right to hearing has been provided to these applicants, who are represented by Sri G.C.Sinha, Advocate, before this Court.
(xii) In view of facts, which would be considered for disposal of the petition(s), under consideration, this Court is of the view that only right of hearing would suffice to Ram Vinod and Rishikesh Pathak, who have entered into the shoes of Mahesh Prasad by virtue of sale deed dated 20.06.2019, and are represented by Sri G.C.Sinha, Advocate, and there is no need to provide time to file counter affidavit as the facts referred in the impugned order(s) cannot be improved by means of an affidavit.
(xiii) This Court is not inclined to issue notice to legal heirs of Mahesh Prasad and other private respondents in both the petition(s). It is for the reasons aforesaid particularly the fact that the land in issue was transferred/sold on 20.06.2019 by Mahesh Prasad and to whom the land in issue was transferred/sold namely Ram Vinod and Rishikesh Pathak are present before this Court through Sri G.C.Sinha, Advocate, and contesting for their rights over the land in issue.
(xiv) Further, the issuance of notice to the legal heirs of Mahesh Prasad and other private respondents, who in fact are formal respondents, would be futile exercise as after appearance they would not be in a position to dispute the facts of the case and this process would delay the disposal of present petition(s).
(xv) The C.O., after considering the material available on record including the evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the claim of Mewa Lal vide impugned order dated 29.06.2010 and allowed the claim of Mahesh Prasad. Relevant portion of the order dated 29.06.2010 reads as under:-
"mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa dks lquk rFkk oknh esokyky vf/koDrk dk eq[; rdZ gS fd eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky }kjk fyf[kr olh;rukek lu~ 1944 ds vk/kkj ij [kkrk la0 98 esokyky iq= ';keyky ds uke tkuk pkfg, rFkk ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k gS fd >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky dh tehu jke izlkn ds uke dSls vk;hA blh izdkj izfroknh egs'k izlkn ds vf/koDrk us ;g rdZ fn;k gS fd lh0,p0 4 esa dksbZ ruktk ugha cuk gS rFkk esokyky iq= ';keyky tkfr ds dqehZ gS rFkk olh;rukek dks lkfcr djus ds fy, xokg ;k ys[kd gkftj ugha gq,A rFkk olh;r esa vkjkth ds lEcU/k esa dqN ugha dgk x;k gSA blh izdkj HkxkSrh izlkn ds vf/koDrk us ;g rdZ j[kk gS fd jke izlkn e`rd ds rhu yM+ds gS vkSj fookfnr Hkwfe ij rhuksa okfjlkuksa dk dCtk o n[ky gS rFkk fookfnr Hkwfe jke izlkn dks v;ks/;k izlkn ls izkIr gqbZ FkhA mHk;i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{;ksa dk lE;d ifj'khyu fd;k x;k oknh esokyky us vius olh;rukek o"kZ 1944 dh udy mldk fgUnh vuqokn izLrqr fd;k gSA ftlesa eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky dkSe dqehZ fuoklh cMxkao us esokyky oYn ';keyky ds gd esa fd;k gS ijUrq olh;rukek xokgksa ;k ys[kd ls olh;rukes dks lR;kfir ugha djk;k gSA vkSj olh;rukek ds xokgksa o ys[kd dks u izLrqr djus dk dkj.k Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA blh izdkj oknh ds }kjk izLrqr udy m)j.k [krkSuh [kkrk la0&17 lu~ 1356 Qlyh izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa fookfnr Hkwfe eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky dksjh lkfdu ns gds uke vafdr gSA iqu% buds }kjk udy [krkSuh [kkrk la0&14 lu~ 1344 Qlyh izLrqr fd;k gS tks lu~ 1356 esa vafdr uEcjksa ls esy ugha [kkrs gSA ek= ,d uEcj gh esy [kkrs gSA oknh }kjk izLrqr olh;rukek esa dkSe dqehZ vafdr gSA vkSj buds }kjk izLrqr udys eSa dkSe dksjh fy[kk gSA ;g ,d fopkjk.kh; iz'u gS fd D;k dqehZ us dksjh dh olh;rukek fd;k gSA tcfd oknh us vius dks eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky ds yM+dh dk yM+dk crk;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa buds }kjk dHkh ugha dgk x;k gSA oknh }kjk izLrqr xokg ckcwyky o jkenso ds c;ku ij izlkbfMax vkfQlj ds gLrk{kj ugha gS tks vius esa gh 'kwU; ekuk tk,xkA tcfd izfroknh jke izlkn e`rd ds okfjlku egs'k izlkn us udy [krkSuh lu~ 1360 o 1371 o 1393 ls 1398 o 1362 Qlyh izLrqr djds ;g lkfcr fd;k gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij cjkcj esjs firk dk dCtk jgk gS vkSj bUgha ds uke gh ntZ jgk gSA blds ckor [kljk Hkh izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk yxku jlhn vkfn ls ;g lkfcr fd;k x;k gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe dk yxku cjkcj buds firk ds }kjk gh fn;k tkrk FkkA oknh esokyky }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd izfroknh xyr mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ;g rF; lkeus vkrk gS fd oknh esokyky ds i{k esa tks olh;rukek eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky us fd;k Fkk og tkfr ds dqehZ Fkh ijUrq bUgha }kjk izLrqr udy lu~ 1356 esa >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky tkfr dksjh vafdr gS tks vius vki esa lUnsg iSnk djrk gS vkSj blh izdkj oknh }kjk vius olh;rukes dks xokgksa ls lR;kfir Hkh ugha djk;k gSA tcfd izfroknh egs'k izlkn us vius lk{;ksa ls ;g lkfcr fd;k gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij muds firk jke izlkn dk cjkcj dCtk jgk gS vkSj fookfnr Hkwfe uk;c rglhynkj ds vkns'k fnukad 30-8-54 ds }kjk jke izlkn dks izkIRk gqvk Fkk tks iwoZ esa v;ks/;k izlkn iq= cgksjh ds uke vafdr FkkA tgka rd jke izlkn e`rd ds okfj'k dk iz'u gS rks HkxkSrh izlkn o egs'k izlkn }kjk izLrqr orZeku udy [kkrk la0 186 ij vafdr rglhynkj ds vkns'k ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd e`rd jke izlkn us vius thou dky esa lEiw.kZ vkjkth dk cSukek egs'k izlkn ds i{k esa dj fn;k FkkA blhfy, egs'k izlkn dks gh e`rd jke izlkn ds okfjl cSukesnkj dh gSfl;r ls ekuuk mfpr gksxk rnuqlkj vkifRr i= HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gwW fd oknh esokyky dh vkifRr cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr djus ;ksX; gS vkSj vk/kkj o"kZ [kkrk dk bUnzkt cnLrwj j[kus ;ksX; gSA rFkk xkVk la0 66@0-40 o 86@0-20] ij oxZ&09 dk bUnzkt fujLr djus ;ksX; gSA bl rjg okn fcUnq la0 1 yxk;r 3 udkjkRed :i ls fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vr% vkns'k gqvk fd& vkns'k xzke cMxkao ds vk/kkj o"kZ [kkrk la0 98 ls e`rd jke izlkn iq= jke ykSV ds LFkku ij cSukes ds vk/kkj ij egs'k izlkn iq= jke izlkn xzkeoklh dk uke cSukesnkj ntZ jgsxk rFkk vkifRr esokyky ckor olh;rukek cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr gks rFkk xkVk la0 66@0-40 o 86@0-20 ij oxZ 9 dk bUnzkt o vkifRr f'ko x:.k fujLr gksA i=koyh okn veynjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA"
(xvi) From the above quoted portion of the order dated 29.06.2010, it is apparent that Mewa Lal failed to prove the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 by adducing appropriate evidence as required under the law and accordingly his claim was rejected.
(xvii) It also appears from the order dated 29.06.2010 that the land in issue in the khatuani of Fasli Year 1356 was recorded in the name of Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal and she executed the alleged 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 and died issueless.
(xviii) From the order dated 29.06.2010, it is also apparent that the claim of Mahesh Prasad was allowed by the C.O., after taking note of the facts pertaining to possession of Ram Prasad over the land in issue as also the order dated 30.08.1954 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and that Ram Prasad executed the sale deed in favour of Mahesh Prasad.
(xix) The order dated 29.06.2010 was challenged before the appellate court i.e. respondent No.2/S.O.C. by instituting two appeal(s) under Sections 11(1) of the Act of 1953, registered as Appeal No. 1040 (Mewa Lal vs. Mahesh Prasad & Others) and Appeal No. 1031 (Bhagwati Prasad & Others vs. Mahesh Prasad).
(xx) The respondent No.2/S.O.C. dismissed both the appeals vide impugned order dated 29.09.2011 and set aside the order of C.O. dated 29.06.2010. By the order dated 29.09.2011, respondent No.2/S.O.C. directed the revenue officials to enter the name of Gaon Sabha in the revenue record of the land in issue. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the respondent No.2/S.O.C. reads as under:-
"mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZa dks lquk x;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA nksuksa vihysa ,d nwljs ls lacaf/kr gSa] vr% fu.kZ; dh lqxerk gsrq nksuksa vihyksa dks lesfdr dj vihy la[;k 1040 eq[; i=koyh ekuh tkrh gSA vihykaV esok yky ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr djrs gq, dgk fd fookfnr Hkwfe vk/kkj o"kZ [kkrk la[;k 98 esa jke izlkn iq= jke ykSVu ds uke vafdr gSA /kkjk 9d (2) ds varxZr esok yky us vkifRr izLrqr fd;k fd [kkrk 98 ds xkVksa dks olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij mlds uke vafdr fd;k tk;A nwljh vkifRr jke izlkn us izLrqr dh fd xkVk 66@0&40] 86@0&20 ij mldk dCtk gS vr% bu xkVksa dks mlds uke vafdr fd;k tk;A rhljh vkifRr f'ko x:.k us fookfnr Hkwfe dks vius uke vafdr djus ds fy, vkifRr izLrqr dh FkhA f'ko x:.k us vkifRr [kkfjt gksus ds mijkUr dksbZ vihy ugha dh gSA [kkrk la[;k 98 dh iwoZ [kkrsnkj eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky us vihykaV ds i{k esa vius thou dky esa leLr py vpy lEifRr dk olh;rukek fnukad 13&9&44 dks fy[k dj iathd`r djk fn;kA eq0 >qjkZ ds ejus ds ckn vihykaV fookfnr Hkwfe ij dkfct o vf/kdkjoku gqvkA foi{kh jke izlkn ds firk us gsjk Qsjh djds [kkrs ij viuk uke vafdr djk fy;kA olh;rukek ds gkfl;k xokg o ys[kd dh e`R;q cgqr igys gks pqdh gS blfy, mUgsa U;k;ky; ds le{k ijhf{kr ugha djk;k tk ldkA vihykaV us fyf[kr lk{; esa ,l0Mh0vks0 xks.Mk] vij vk;qDr QStkckn e.My] ek0 jktLo ifj"kn bykgkckn ds vkns'kksa dh izfr rFkk olh;rukek dk fgUnh :ikUrj] udy [krkSuh 1356 Q0] 1344 Q0 nkf[ky fd;k gS ftlesa fookfnr Hkwfe ea0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky o i`Fohiky iq= cgksjh ds uke vafdr FkhA ekSf[kd lk{; esa jke nso o ckcw yky dk c;ku vafdr djk;k gSA xokgksa us dgk gS fd vihykaV eq0 >qjkZ ds yM+dh dk yM+dk gSA eq0 >qjkZ us viuh leLr py vpy lEifRr dk olh;rukek vihykaV ds i{k esa fy[kk gSA voj U;k;ky; us olh;rukek dks blfy, ugha ekuk fd olh;rukek gkf'k;k xokg o ys[kd }kjk lR;kfir ugha djk;k x;k gSA jke izlkn ds yM+ds egs'k izlkn us vius c;ku esa rFkk mlds firk us Hkh ,l0Mh0vks0 xks.Mk ds U;k;ky; esa ;g c;ku fn;k gS fd fookfnr vkjkth cyjkeiqj fj;klr ls izkIr gqbZA jke izlkn ds e`R;q ds ckn lEiw.kZ vkjkth dk cSukek egs'k izlkn us djk fy;k A jke izlkn us vkSj nksuksa yM+dksa dks cSukek D;ksa ugha fd;k bldk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA fookfnr Hkwfe eq0 >qjkZ ds ckn jke izlkn o v;ks/;k ds uke dSls vkbZ bldk dksbZ izek.k ugha gS D;ksafd [krkSuh 1361 Q0 nkf[ky gS mlesa v;ks/;k izlkn iq= cgksjh ds uke vafdr gS tcfd 1356 Q0 esa eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky ds uke vafdr gSA jke izlkn us tks cSukek fd;k gS mlds ealw[kh dk okn nhokuh U;k;ky; esa py jgk gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa olh;rukek ds laca/k esa okn fcUnq ugha cuk;k x;k gS rFkk jke izlkn U;k;ky; esa dHkh mifLFkr ugha vk,A egs'k izlkn ftjg esa ;g ugha crk ik, fd mDr vkjkth muds firk dks dSls o dgka ls feyhA nwljs xokg jke Hkou us Hkh fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa dksbZ Li"V tkudkjh ugha nh gSA voj U;k;ky; us vihykaV ds olh;rukek dks u eku dj cSukes ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh la[;k 1 ds uke fookfnr Hkwfe vafdr djus esa =qfV dh gSA vihykaV }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr o ekSf[kr lk{;ksa dk fof/kor voyksdu ugha fd;k gSA egs'k izlkn dh rjQ ls ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k ftlls ;g fl) gks lds fd fookfnr Hkwfe jke izlkn dks dSls izkIr gqbZ vr% vihy Lohdkj dj voj U;k;ky; dk iz'uxr vkns'k 29&6&10 fujLr djds [kkrk 98 ij vafdr jke izlkn iq= jke ykSV dk uke [kkfjt djds iathd`r olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij vihykaV dk uke vafdr fd;k tk;A vihykaV HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr djrs gq, dgk fd fookfnr Hkwfe vihykaV ds firk jke izlkn ds uke vafdr gSA jke izlkn ds rhu yM+ds HkxkSrh izlkn] nsoh izlkn o egs'k izlkn gSaA jke izlkn dh e`R;q ds mijkUr jke izlkn ds rhuksa yM+dksa dk izR;kLFkkiu gqvkA rhuksa Hkkb;ksa dk 1@3 izR;sd va'k gSA voj U;k;ky; us cSukek ds vk/kkj ij egs'k izlkn dk uke vafdr dj fn;kA dfFkr cSukek ds ealw[kh dk okn nhokuh U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA egs'k izlkn jke izlkn ds eq[rkj Fks vkSj cSukek egs'k izlkn ds uke gqvk gSA cSukek fcuk izfrQy ds fd;k x;k gSA jke izlkn us vius thoudky esa dksbZ cSukek ugha fd;kA fookfnr Hkwfe lhjnkjh dh Hkwfe gS ftldh olh;r ugha gks ldrh gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us fookfnr Hkwfe vdsys egs'k izlkn ds uke vafdr dj fn;k tcfd mlesa rhuksa Hkkb;ksa dk va'k gSA vr% vihy Lohdkj dj voj U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fujLr fd;k tk; rFkk [kkrs esa vihykaV dk 1@3 va'k dk;e fd;k tk;A fo}ku vf/koDrk us ,l0lh0Mh0 1993 i`"B 137] 2006 vkj0Mh0 i`"B 250] 2005 (98) vkj0Mh0 i`"B 371] ij nh xbZ fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dh vksj esjk /;ku vkd`"V djk;k gSA foi{kh egs'k ;kno ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr djrs gq, dgk fd fookfnr Hkwfe igys eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky ds uke vafdr FkhA eq0 >qjkZ tkfr dh dksjh gS tSlk fd udy [krkSuh 1356 Q0 [kkrk la[;k 17 ls Li"V gSA tks olh;rukek vihykaV esok yky ds gd esa gS mlesa eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky tkfr dqehZ vafdr gSA bl izdkj [krkSuh o olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij nksuksa ckrsa fHkUu fHkUu gSaA vihykaV dk eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky tkfr dksjh dh tehu ls dksbZ okLrk o ljksdkj ugha gSA vihykaV us dfFkr olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij eq0 >qjkZ ds ejus ds mijkUr ukekUrj.k gsrq dksbZ nj[okLr pdcUnh ls iwoZ ugha fn;k vkSj u 229 ch0 dh nj[okLr gh fn;k ftlls esok yky dgha izfrokn dj gh ugha ldrs gSaA foi{kh egs'k izlkn ds firk }kjk 229 ch0 dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k ysfdu vihykaV }kjk dgha Hkh izfrokn ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls vihykaV dks pdcanh esa yM+us dk vf/kdkj ugha jg tkrk gSA fookfnr Hkwfe lhjnkjh dh gS lhjnkjh Hkwfe ds ckor olh;r djus dk izkfo/kku ugha gSA bl izdkj vihykaV dks olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij izfrokn djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA fookfnr Hkwfe foi{kh egs'k dks v;ks/;k iq= cgksjh ls rglhynkj ds okn la[;k 1423 vkns'k fnukad 30&8&54 ls izkIRk gqbZ gSA ftlls >qjkZ dk dksbZ gd o fgLlk ugha gSA v;ks/;k iq= cgksjh dksbZ fookn dgha Hkh fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa ugha dj jgs gSa rks esokyky ds yM+us ls dqN ugha gks ldrk] D;ksafd esokyky tkfr ds dqehZ gS vkSj fookfnr Hkwfe eq0 >qjkZ tkfr dksjh dh Fkh ftlls esok yky dk dksbZ okLrk ljksdkj ugha gSA mRrjnkrk us vius fyf[kr lk{;ksa ls fl) fd;k gS fd og t0fo0vf/k0 ds igys ls gh [kkrsnkj pyk vk jgk gS vkSj yxku Hkh tek dj jgk gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ls vihykaV dk dksbZ okLrk ljksdkj ugha gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa lh0,p0 4 esa dksbZ ruktk ugha cuk gSA esok yky lh/ks yM+ jgs gSaaA ;w0 ih0 VsusUlh ,sDV esa dksbZ Hkh ,slk fo/kku olh;rukek ds ykxw gksus dk ugha fn;k x;k gS ftlls mudk olh;rukek fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij izhosy ugha djrk gS u gh dksbZ fo/kku gh gSA tsM0 ,0 ,DV ds igys dksbZ Hkh fo/kku ugha gS olh;rukek ds ckcrA vr% vihykaV dh vihy fujk/kkj gS fujLr fd;k tk;A ljdkj dh rjQ ls ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr fd;k gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe 1356 Q0 es eq0 >wjh csok i`Fkhiky dkSe dksjh ds uke fteu 4 vlkfe;ku ds :i esa vafdr gS] ftlls Li"V gS fd eq0 >wjk ds csok i`Fkhiky fookfnr Hkwfe dh vlkeh FkhA fdlh Hkh vlkeh lhjnkj dks viuh vlkeh vFkok lhjnkjh okyh Hkwfe dk olh;rukek vFkok c;ukek fy[kus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA bl izdkj eq> >wjh }kjk vihykaV esokyky ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr olh;rukek olh;rdrkZ ds vf/kdkj {ks= ls ijs gksus ds dkj.k mDr olh;rukek 'kwU; ekuk tk,xk vkSj 'kwU; olh;rukes ds vk/kkj ij vihykaV esok yky dks dksbZ LoRo iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA foi{kh egs'k izlkn ds i{k eas p0v0 }kjk ukekUrj.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd egs'k izlkn ds i{k esa muds firk jke izlkn }kjk iz'uxr Hkwfe dk c;ukek fd;k tkuk dgk tk jgk gS] fdUrq mDr c;ukek fnukad 25-11-03 dks fu"ikfnr fd;k tkuk fcdz;i= esa vafdr gSA fodszrk jke izlkn }kjk i=koyh ij uk;c rglhynkj] xks.Mk ds vkns'k fnukad 30-8-54 dh vizekf.kr izfrfyfi izLrqr djds vius dks fookfnr Hkwfe dk fteu&4 vlkeh fl) djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq mDr vkns'k fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; vFkok dk;kZy; }kjk izekf.kr ugha gSA blls uk;c rglhynkj ds rFkkdfFkr vkns'k ij u rks fo'okl fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj u gh jke izlkn iq= ykSVu dks fookfnr Hkwfe dk vlkeh vFkok lhjnkj ekuk tk ldrk gSA uk;c rglhynkj }kjk ikfjr dfFkr vkns'k 30-8-54 muds vf/kdkj {ks= ls ijs Fkk] D;ksafd vukf/kdkj dCts ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks uk;c rglhynkj }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe dk lhjnkj@vlkeh ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj vf/kdkj {ks= ls ijs ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k 'kwU; ekuk tk,xkA bl izdkj 'kwU; vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij jke izlkn dks iz'uxr Hkwfe ds fodz; dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha Fkk tSlk fd ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ,0lh0ts0 2004 i`"B 787 ij fl)kUr izfrikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mifjof.kZr rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa ;g Li"V gS fd tc jke izlkn gh fookfnr Hkwfe ds Hkwfe/kj ugha Fks vkSj mUgsa mDr Hkwfe ds fcdz; djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha Fkk rks muds }kjk fd, x, fcdz; i= ds vk/kkj ij dzsrk egs'k izlkn dks dksbZ LoRo iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl izdkj voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29-6-10 vfof/kd gS vkSj fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS mHk; i{k dks Lohdkj gS fd eq0 >wjh dh e`R;q ykokfjl gqbZ gS vkSj mudk dksbZ izkd`frd mRrjkf/kdkjh fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa viuk nkok is'k ugha fd;k gS vkSj nkok izLrqr djus okys vihydrkZx.k viuk LoRo fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gSa blfy, mDr nksuksa vihysa ,oa p0v0 }kjk ikfjr vkns'k 29-6-10 fujLr djds fookfnr Hkwfe /kkjk 11 ¼lh½ pd0vf/k0 ds varxZr xkao lHkk ds i{k esa fufgr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSaA vr% mijksDr nksuksa vihysa o p0v0 dk vkns'k fnukad 29-6-10 fujLr djds fookfnr Hkwfe xkao lHkk ds [kkrs esa fufgr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdkZsa rFkk i=koyh ds lk{;ksa ij lexz fopkjksijkUr esjk fu"d"kZ ;g gS fd ;g rF; mHk; i{k dks ekU; gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe 1356Q0 dh [krkSuh esa eq0 >wjh csok i`Fkhiky dksjh ds uke fteu 4 esa vafdr gSA vihykaV esok yky bl Hkwfe ij 1944 ds olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij] foi{kh dCts@uk;c rglhynkj ds vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij rFkk vihykaV HkxkSrh firk jke izlkn ds fojklr@va'k dh ekax dj jgs gSaA foi{khx.k egs'k vkfn ds firk jke izlkn ds LoRo dk vk/kkj uk;c rglhynkj }kjk okn la[;k 1423 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 30-8-54 gS] ftlls dCts ds vk/kkj ij LoRo feyk gSA uk;c rglhynkj dk vkns'k fnukad 30-8-54 dks muds vf/kdkj {ks= ls ijs Fkk] D;ksafd vukf/kdkj dCts ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks uk;c rglhynkj }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe dk lhjnkj@vlkeh ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj vf/kdkj {ks= ls ijs ikfjr fd; x;k vkns'k 'kwU; ekuk tk,xkA bl izdkj 'kwU; vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij jke izlkn dks fookfnr Hkwfe ds fcdz; dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha Fkk] tSlk fd ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ,0lh0ts02004 i`"B 787 ij fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA tc jke izlkn gh fookfnr Hkwfe ds Hkwfe/kj ugha Fks vkSj mUgsa mDr Hkwfe ds fcdz; djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha Fkk] rks muds }kjk fd, x, fcdz; i= ds vk/kkj ij dszrk egs'k izlkn dks dksbZ LoRo iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA tgka rd eq0 >wjh }kjk esok yky ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr olh;rukek dk iz'u gS] udy [kriSuh 1356 Q0 [kkrk la[;k 17 eq0 >wjh csok i`Fkhiky dksjh ds uke fteu 4 esa vafdr gSA tks olh;rukek nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS] mlesa eq0 >wjh csok i`Fkhiky dkse dqehZ vafdr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd ;g olh;rukek [kkrk 17 dh [kkrsnkfj;k eq0 >wjh csok i`Fkhiky dksjh }kjk fu"ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ;fn ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk; fd olh;rukek [kkrk 17 dh [kkrsnkfj;k eq0>wjh csok i`Fkhiky dksjh }kjk gh fd;k x;k gS] rc Hkh ml olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij vihykaV dks dksbZ LoRo ugha iznku fd;k tk ldrk gS] D;ksafd fookfnr Hkwfe fteu 4 esa vafdr gS vkSj fteu 4 dh Hkwfe dks olh;r djus ;k cspus dk vf/kdkj [kkrsnkj dks ugha gSA tc jke izlkn ds LoRo dk vk/kkj uk;c rglhynkj dk vkns'k fnukad 30-8-54 'kwU; gS rc jke izlkn dks fookfnr Hkwfe dk c;ukek djus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vkSj muds }kjk fd;k x;k c;ukek 'kwU; gks tkrk gSA 'kwU; c;ukek ds vk/kkj ij egs'k izlkn o HkxkSrh vkfn dh LOkRo dh ;kpuk fof/kr% vuqfpr gSA blds vfrfjDr tc eq0 >wjh dks olh;rukek djus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk] rc bl olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij esok yky ds LoRo dh ekax Hkh vfopkj.kh; gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us jke izlkn }kjk fu"ikfnr c;ukes ds vk/kkj ij iz'uxr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS] tks fof/kvuqdwy ugha gSA mHk; i{k dks Lohdkj gS fd eq0 >wjh csok i`Fkhiky dh e`R;q ykokfjl gqbZ gS mudk dksbZ oS/kkfud mRrjkf/kdkjh fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa viuk nkok is'k djus ugha vk;k gS] blfy, fookfnr Hkwfe dks uohu ijrh xkao lHkk esa fufgr fd;k tkuk gh lehphu gSA ;|fi xkao lHkk dh vksj ls dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS] fdUrq /kkjk 11¼lh½ tks0p0vf/k0 ds varxZr xkao lHkk lEifRr dh lqj{kk dk vf/kdkj v/kksgLrk{kjh dks izkIr gSA rnuqlkj nksuksa vihysa fujk/kkj gSa vkSj fujLrs; gSaA mDr RkF;ksa ds n`f"Vxr mHk; Ik{kksa ds rdZ o O;oLFkk,a vlaxr o viz;ksT; gSaA vkns'k vr% esok yky o HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn dh vihysa fujk/kkj gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSaA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fnukad 29-6-10 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA fookfnr Hkwfe xkao lHkk@ijrh ds [kkrs esa vafdr gksA rnuqlkj vfHkys[k nq:Lr gksA ;gh vkns'k vihy la[;k 1031 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA i=koyh ckn vuqikyu vfHklafpr gksA"
(xxi) The above quoted portion of the order dated 29.09.2011 indicates that Mewa Lal failed to prove the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 by adducing appropriate evidence as required under the law.
(xxii) It is also apparent from the order dated 29.09.2011, quoted above, that in the khatauni of Fasli Year 1356, which is relevant for the rights available under Chapter-II of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, the name of Smt. Jhurri, widow of Prithi Pal, was recorded in Ziman-4 (fteu & 4), which means an occupier without any title, and based upon the same the respondent No.2/S.O.C. observed in the order dated 29.09.2011 that the land recorded as Ziman-4 (fteu & 4) neither can be bequeathed nor transferred.
(xxiii) Respondent No.2/S.O.C. in the order dated 29.09.2011, quoted above, based upon the caste of Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal, mentioned in the Khatuani i.e. 'Kori' and the caste i.e. 'Kurmi', mentioned in the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 (the basis of claim of Mewa Lal) also observed that it cannot be said that the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 in relation to land in issue was executed by Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal. Thus, doubted on the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944.
(xxiv) From the order dated 29.09.2011, it also transpires that respondent No.2/S.O.C. for rejecting the claim of Mahesh Prasad and others specifically observed that (i) the rights/title cannot be provided by the Naib Tehsildar to an unauthorized occupant on the basis of possession, (ii) the order dated 30.08.1954 passed in Case No. 1423 was without jurisdiction and as such, the same should be treated as nullity/void and (iii) when Ram Prasad was not the bhumidhar of disputed land, he was not having any rights to sale the said land and thus, title can not be provided Mahesh Prasad.
(xxv) It also appears from the order dated 29.09.2011, quoted above, that after taking note of undisputed fact that Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal expired issueless and no legal heir came forward to claim the rights over the land in issue and Section 11-C of the Act of 1953, according to which the Consolidation Authorities are under obligation to save the interest of Gaon Sabha even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority, the respondent No.2/S.O.C. directed the revenue officials to record the land in issue in the name of Gaon Sabha.
(xxvi) Challenging the order dated 29.09.2011, three revisions were filed under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953 i.e. Revision No. 273/2011530830000003 (Mahesh Prasad Yadav vs. Gram Sabha), Revision No. 278/2011530830000004 (Bhagauti Prasad & Others vs. Gram Sabha & Others) and Revision No. 280/2011530830000007 (Mewa Lal vs. Mahesh Prasad & Others).
(xxvii) The revisional authority i.e. respondent No.1/D.D.C. vide impugned order dated 03.09.2019 rejected the claim of Mewa Lal, petitioner in Writ - B No. 26174 of 2019, and the petitioners in Writ - B No. 26363 of 2019 namely Bhwagwati Prasad Yadav, Smt. Sitapati, Kanhaiya Lal and Smt. Aneeta Yadava and allowed the claim of Mahesh Prasad. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.09.2019 reads as under:-
"mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZa ds vkyksd esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ls fofnr gS fd fookfnr vkjkth ij fuxjkuhdrkZ egs'k izlkn ds firk jke izlkn ds LoRo dk vk/kkj uk;c rglhynkj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k okn la[;k&1423 fu.kZ; fnukad 30&08&54 gS ftudks dCts ds vk/kkj ij LoRo feyk gS ftlds fo:) fdlh vU; O;fDr vFkok xzke lHkk }kjk dksbZ pkjk tksbZ ugha dh x;h gS] ftlds ifj.kke Lo:i uk;c rglhynkj dk mDr vkns'k fnukad 30&08&54 vfUre vo/kkfjr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA jke izlkn dk uke yxkrkj [krkSuh lu~ 1360] 1362] 1371 o 1393 ls 1398 ls vkt rd ntZ gksrk pyk vk jgk gS] tks Li"V djrk gS fd jke izlkn dk LoRo fookfnr Hkwfe esa fufoZokn :i ls Li"V gS] ftls orZeku esa [kkfjt fd;k tkuk fdlh Hkh n'kk esa U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA tgka rd cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk /kkjk&11 ¼lh0½ tks0p0vf/k0 ds vUrxZr xzke lHkk lEifRr dh lqj{kk iznku fd;s tkus dh tks foospuk djds vkns'k fnukad 29&09&11 ikfjr djds fookfnr vkjkth xzke lHkk ds [kkrs esa vafdr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS og esjs fopkj ls fof/k lEer izrhr ugha gksrk gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k ds'k yk0 vkj0 Mh0 1974 i`"B&97 ek0 mPp U;k;k;y lkfyd jke cuke ch0,l0 jkor Mk;jsDVj vkQ0 dU'kkyhMs'ku mRrj izns'k vkfn esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj tks0p0vf/k0 dh /kkjk&9 rFkk /kkjk&11, ds vUrxZr xzkelHkk }kjk vkifRr vFkok vihy ;ksftr u fd;s tkus dh n'kk esa r`rh; i{k ds i{k esa vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vFkok xzke lHkk esa fufgr fd;s tkus dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k vkj0Mh0 1975 i`"B&61 ,y0ch0 ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa Hkh ;g er O;fDr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn xzke lHkk us tks0p0vf/k0 dh /kkjk&9] /kkjk&11, rFkk /kkjk&48 esa dksbZ vkifRr] vihy fuxjkuh ugha izLrqr dh x;h gS rks okn ds fdlh ifjdze ij dksbZ okn ;ksftr djus esa l{ke ugha gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; izdk'k esa vkrk gS fd xzke lHkk }kjk dksbZ vkifRr tks0p0vf/k0 dh /kkjk&9 vFkok /kkjk&11¼1½ ds vUrxZr vihy ;ksftr ugha dh x;h gSA rnuqlkj vkns'k cUnksscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh mijksDr of.kZr ds'k yk0 ds rF;ksa ds foijhr gSA bl izdkj cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh dk vkns'k fnukad 29&09&11 ckor fookfnr Hkwfe xzke lHkk ds [kkrs esa vafdr fd;s tkus dk fof/k lEer u gksus ds dkj.k gLr{ksi ds ;ksX; gSA cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us vius fufgr {ks=kf/kdkj dk vfrdze.k djds vUrxZr /kkjk&11 lh0 tks0p0vf/k0 esa iz'uxr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ds ckor fyf[kr [kkrsnkj jke izlkn us vius thou dky esa gh egs'k izlkn tks buds iq= gSa ds i{k esa iathd`r cSukek dj fn;k gSA iathd`r cSukek i=koyh ij miyC/k gSa rFkk ukekUrj.k vkns'k Hkh rglhy ls ikfjr gks pqdk gS] tSlk fd m)j.k [krkSuh Qlyh o"kZ 1412&1417 esa vafdr veynjken ls Li"V gSA jke izlkn dh e`R;q gks x;h gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us egs'k izlkn dks gh e`rd jke izlkn ds okfjl cSukesnkj dh gSfl;r ls ekuus esa dksbZ fof/kd Hkwy ugha fd;k gSA ;|fi fuxjkuhdrkZx.k HkxkSrh izlkn o nsoh izlkn Hkh e`rd jke izlkn ds iq=x.k gSa fdUrq jke izlkn us vius thou dky esa gh fnukad 25&11&03 dks cSukek egs'k izlkn ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr dj fn;k gSA ,slh n'kk esa cSukes ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe dsoy egs'k izlkn dks gh feysxhA HkxkSrh izlkn o nsoh izlkn dks fu;ekuqlkj fookfnr Hkwfe ugha fey ldrh gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn dh vkifRr fujLr djus esa dksbZ xyrh ugha dh gSA rn~uqlkj cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us Hkh HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn dh vihy dks fujLr djus esa dksbZ fof/kd xyrh ugha dh gSA bl izdkj egs'k izlkn dh fuxjkuh Lohdkj djds cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds }kjk ikfjr iz'u xr vkns'k fnukad 29&09&11 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djds pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29&06&10 ;Fkkor fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn dh fuxjkuh cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ esokyky fookfnr Hkwfe ij lu~ 1944 ds olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij tks fd eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky ds }kjk fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS ds vk/kkj ij LoRo dh ekax dh x;h gSA fookfnr Hkwfe 1356 Q0 dh [krkSuh esa eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky dksjh ds uke fteu&4 esa vafdr gS] vkSj tks mDr fu"ikfnr olh;rukek tks esokyky ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS mlesa eq0 >qjkZ csok i`Fohiky dkSe dqehZ vafdr gSA bl izdkj mDr dfFkr fu"ikfnr olh;rukek lansg dh ifjf/k esa vk tkrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ,oa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk dh x;h foospuk rdZ ;qDr ,oa fof/k lEer gSA D;ksafd fookfnr Hkwfe tehankjh fouk'k ds iwoZ vFkkZr~ 01&07&1952 ds iwoZ fteu&4 esa vafdr gSA vkSj fteu&4 esa vafdr Hkwfe ds LFkkukUrj.k dk izkfo/kku fof/kd :i ls dsoy lhj gksYMj ¼tehankj½ dks gh izkIr gSA fteu&4 ds dk'rdkj dks rn~uqlkj olh;rukek ds fu"iknu o iath;u dk vf/kdkj fufgr ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk dh x;h foospuk fof/k lEer gSA mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fuxjkuh egs'k izlkn ;kno esa cy gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj dj cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fujLr fd;s tkus rFkk fookfnr Hkwfe egs'k izlkn ;kno ds uke crkSj cSukesnkj ntZ fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk fuxjkuh HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn o esokyky cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus rFkk pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29&06&10 ;Fkkor~ fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vkns'k ikfjr gqvk fd& vkns'k fuxjkuh egs'k izlkn ;kno Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29&09&11 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA egs'k izlkn iq= jke izlkn ds i{k esa ikfjr vkns'k pdcUnh vf/kdkjh fnukad 29&06&10 ;Fkkor fd;k tkrk gSA fuxjkuh HkxkSrh izlkn vkfn o esokyky cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k dh ,d izfr fuxjkuh la[;k&278 HkxkSrh izlkn cuke xzke lHkk rFkk fuxjkuh la[;k&280 esokyky cuke egs'k izlkn vkfn ij j[kh tk;A i=koyh okn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksaA"
(xxviii) From the above quoted portion of the impugned order dated 03.09.2019, it is apparent that the claim of Mewa Lal was rejected as he failed to prove the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 by adducing appropriate evidence as required under the law and allowed the claim of Mahesh Prasad after taking note of period of possession of four years over the land in issue of Ram Prasad prior to passing of order dated 30.08.1954 as also the order dated 30.08.1954 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, whereby the Naib Tehsildar provided the rights to Ram Prasad, who transferred the land to his own son namely Mahesh Prasad, and this Mahesh Prasad subsequently transferred the land to the applicants namely Ram Vinod and Rishikesh Pathak, represented by Sri G.C. Sinha, Advocate.
5. In the aforesaid background of the case, two following questions/issues are to be answered by this Court:-
"(a) Whether the calim of Mewa Lal, based upon the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944, is justified and is liable to be allowed?
(b) Whether in allowing the claim of Mahesh Prasad, the C.O. as also the D.D.C. committed error in law and fact both?"
6. So far as the Question No.(a) i.e. "Whether the claim of Mewa Lal, based upon the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944, is justified and is liable to be allowed", is concerned, this Court is of the view that the claim of Mewa Lal based upon the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 is not liable to be allowed. It is for the following reasons:-
(i) Undisputedly, in the khatauni of Fasli Year 1356 the name of Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal, who executed the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 in favour of Mewa Lal, was recorded in Ziman-4 (fteu&4), which means an occupier without any title, and a person of such nature, as per law, is not empowered to execute a 'Will' or to transfer the property of such nature.
(ii) To controvert the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has not placed any provision of law or any authority.
(iii) The 'Will', as per settled proposition of law including the judgment passed by this Court in Writ - B No. 23043 of 2020 (Ghuru And Ors. vs. Addl.District Magistrate Finance/Revenue Kheri And Ors.), has to be proved strictly in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Sections 68, 69, 90 & 90-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 and in the instant case, the 'Will' was not proved as per law including by producing the attesting witnesses, the author of the 'Will' and as such, the basis of claim itself was not proved by Mewa Lal and being so the claim of Mewa Lal based upon the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 cannot be acceded, even if, it is presumed that under the law Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal was empowered to transfer the property.
(iv) Taking note of concurrent findings recorded in the impugned order(s) that Mewa Lal failed to prove the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 by adducing appropriate evidence, this Court put a query to Sri Pande, learned Senior Advocate as to by which document it can be deduced that 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 was proved before the C.O. as per law.
(v) To the above query, Sri Pande, learned Senior Advocate, could not place any document before this Court from which it can be deduced that 'Will' was proved by producing attesting witness or if the attesting witnesses were not available, then in that event, by adducing appropriate evidence as per law.
(vi) The propounder is under obligation to prove the 'Will'. In this case, Mewa Lal failed to prove the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 and in this regard, specific findings have been recorded by the C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. and before this Court, no document has been placed form which it can be deduced that Mewa Lal proved the 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 as per law and accordingly this Court finds that claim of Mewa Lal based upon 'Will' dated 13.09.1944 was rightly rejected vide order dated 29.06.2010, affirmed vide order dated 29.09.2011 and 03.09.2019 by the authorities under the Act of 1953 namely C.O., S.O.C., and D.D.C., respectively.
7. In regard to Question No.(b) i.e."Whether in allowing the claim of Mahesh Prasad, the C.O. as also the D.D.C. committed error in law and fact both", this Court is of the view that respondent No.3/C.O. and respondent No.1/D.D.C. while allowing the claim of Mahesh Prasad S/o Ram Prasad vide order dated 29.06.2010 and 03.09.2019, respectively, erred in law and fact both. It is for the following reasons:-
(i) Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal, undisputedly, died issueless.
(ii) Ram Prasad, father of Mahesh Prasad, was not the legal heir of Smt. Jhurri widow of Prithvi Pal and this fact is not in dispute.
(iii) Ram Prasad instituted a case for correction of records and in this case, he impleaded one Ayodhya Prasad. The case was instituted on the basis of alleged possession of four years over the property in issue and this case was finally decided in favour of Ram Prasad vide order dated 30.08.1954 by the Naib Tehsildar.
(iv) The Naib Tehsildar on 30.08.1954 was not empowered, as per statutory provisions indicated in U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"), to pass an order in the case for correction of records and this aspect can be deduced from the relevant provisions, which are extracted hereinunder:-
"Edition (1957)
33. The Annual Register.- (1) The Collector shall maintain the record-of-rights, and for that purpose shall annually, or at such longer intervals as the State Government may prescribe, cause to be prepared an amended [register mentioned in section 32.] The [register] so prepared shall be called the annual register.
(2) The Collector shall cause to be recorded in the annual [register] all changes that may take place and any transaction that may affect any of the rights or interests recorded and shall therein correct any errors proved to have been made in the record-of-right or any annual register previously prepared. (3) No such change or transaction shall be recorded without the order of the Collector or as hereinafter provided, of the Tahsildar or the Panchayati Adalat as constituted under section 42 of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Amendment.- In sub-section (1) for the words "set of the registers enumerated in section 32" the words "register mentioned in section 32" and for the word "registers" occurring in paragraph 2 of sub-section (1) and in line 2 of sub-section (2) the word "register" and the present sub-section (3) have been substituted by Act I of 1951. Sch."
39. Correction of mistakes in the annual registers.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Collector may, on his own motion and shall, on the application of any person, correct any error or ommission in the annual register."
(v) Thus, the order i.e. order dated 30.08.1954, the basis of claim of Mahesh Prasad and other legal heirs of Ram Prasad [petitioner(s) in Writ - B No. 26363 of 2019)], is nullity in the eyes of law being passed by the incompetent authority and being so ought not to have been relied upon for the purposes of providing the benefits to Mahesh Prasad.
(vi) Further, Naib Tehsildar was also not empowered to provide the rights over the property in issue on the basis of possession that too of only four years.
(vii) It is not clear from the record that how the name of Ayodhya Prasad came into light at relevant point of time.
(viii) The basis i.e. order dated 30.08.1954 itself is nullity and as such, the sale deed dated 25.11.2003 executed by Ram Prasad in favour of his son Mahesh Prasad is/was not having any force in law and being so the sale deed executed on 20.06.2019 by Mahesh Prasad in favour Ram Vinod and Rishikesh Pathak is also not having any force in law.
(ix) On the aforesaid aspect of the case, reference can be made to the maxim(s) i.e. "Sublato Fundamento, Cadit Opus" means "basis goes, superstructure goes" and "Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet" means "no one can give what they do not have".
(x) In view of aforesaid observations related to rights of Ram Prasad, the claim of petitioners namely Bhagwati Prasad Yadav, Smt. Seetapati, Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and Smt. Aneeta Yadav in Writ - B No. 26363 of 2019 is not sustainable. Neither the claim of Mahesh Prasad and others including the applicants namely Ram Vinod and Rishikesh Pathak, who preferred the application for impleadment and are represented by Sri G.C. Sinha, Advocate, is also sustainable.
8. For the reasons aforesaid and after taking note of Section 11-C of the Act of 1953 and the principles embodied under Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C. this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is of the view that interest of the Gaon Sabha is to be protected.
9. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner(s) in the aforesaid petition(s) claiming the rights over the property in issue i.e. land recorded in Khata No. 98, as also the rights of Mahesh Prasad-predecessor-in-interest of the applicants, who preferred the application for impleadment, and are represented by Sri G.C. Sinha, Advocate, is hereby rejected and order of respondent No.2/S.O.C. dated 29.09.2011 is hereby restored. The revenue officials are directed to record the land of Khata No. 98 in the name of Gaon Sabha.
10. With the aforesaid, both the petition(s) are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.2.2024 Vinay/-