Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Undisputedly the original recorded tenure holder was one Sant Bahadur Singh, who died on 02.01.2004. On his death, though it is admitted to the parties that he had three sons, namely, Rajendra Prasad Singh, Ram Milan Singh and Dhirendra Pratap Singh, but name of only Ram Milan Singh (respondent no.6) who is the father of respondent nos.4 and 5, was recorded in PA-11 under section 33-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, on 09.01.2004.
Four mutation reports were thereafter filed by the respondent nos.4 and 5 which were registered as case nos. 509, 510, 511 and 512. The said mutation reports were filed before the Naib Tehsildar, Kudwar, Sadar, Sultanpur. All the cases, since they related to estate of the deceased Sant Bahadur Singh, were consolidated and were decided by a common judgment and order by the Naib Tehsildar. The case set up by the respondent nos.4 and 5 was based on an unregistered will deed said to have been executed on 25.12.2003 by the deceased-Sant Bahadur Singh in favour of the respondent nos.4 and 5, namely, Ramnath Singh and Vinod Kumar Singh. The petitioner filed objections in the said mutation cases claiming that she is the wife of Rajendra Prasad Singh, who died on 04.05.2001 and as such she is also entitled to mutation in the revenue records over the land in question in respect of 1/3 share along with Ram Milan Singh and Dhirendra Pratap Singh. It is noticeable that father of the respondent nos.4 and 5, Ram Milan Singh first claimed the land in dispute in his sole name and got his name mutated in PA-11, however, subsequently the respondent nos.4 and 5, who are the sons of Ram Milan Singh, filed mutation report/application claiming mutation in their favour on the basis of alleged will deed dated 25.12.2003 said to have been allegedly executed by Sant Bahadur Singh.
The Naib Tehsildar considered the respective claims of the parties and decided the matter vide his order dated 31.12.2004 whereby the application moved by the respondent nos.4 and 5 seeking mutation over the land in question was rejected and the names of petitioner-Krishna Singh @ Krishna Devi, wife of Rajendra Prasad Singh, Ram Milan Singh and Dhirendra Pratap Singh were ordered to be mutated as successors and legal representatives of Sant Bahadur Singh. The Naib Tehsildar in his order dated 31.12.2004 has considered the evidence led by both the parties and has found that respondent nos.4 and 5 had failed to prove the alleged will deed dated 25.12.2003 said to have been executed in their favour by Sant Bahadur Singh. A categorical finding recorded by the Naib Tehsildar is that the will deed dated 25.12.2003, on the basis of which respondent nos.4 and 5 are claiming their rights, is suspicious. The Naib Tehsildar has also recorded a finding that though the parties to the proceedings before him agreed that Dhirendra Pratap Singh has been missing since long, however, there is no definite information or proof about his death. Accordingly, the Naib Tehsildar by the order dated 31.12.2004, on evaluation of evidence led by both the parties, came to definite conclusion that the will deed dated 25.12.2003 allegedly executed by Sant Bahadur Singh in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 is suspicious and that the petitioner-Krishna Devi, wife of Rajendra Pratap Singh, who was the son of Sant Bahadur Singh, is entitled to 1/3 share in the land in question and accordingly ordered mutation in favour of all three successors of Sant Bahadur Singh, namely, the petitioner being the wife of first son of Sant Bahadur Singh, Ram Milan Singh, the second son and Dhirendra Pratap Singh, the third son of the deceased tenure holder-Sant Bahadur Singh. The respondent nos.4 and 5 thereafter moved a restoration application seeking setting aside of the order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and restoration of the said case. The said application was rejected by the Naib Tehsildar vide his order dated 27.01.2016. The Naib Tehsildar while rejecting the restoration application moved by the respondent nos.4 and 5 has recorded a finding that the order dated 31.12.2004 discusses the evidence led by both the parties and that in the proceedings 29.09.2004 was fixed for evidence of the respondent nos.4 and 5, however, from 29.09.2004 till 17.12.2004 the respondent nos.4 and 5 have been seeking adjournments and were not present on 15.12.2004, 21.12.2004 and 28.12.2004 and it is in the light of these facts that the order dated 31.12.2004 was passed.
Learned counsel representing the respondent nos.6 has also defended the orders impugned in this petition on the grounds as argued by the learned counsel representing the respondent nos.4 and 5.
I have considered the competing arguments made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the records available on this writ petition.
The pedigree, which has been mentioned in one of the preceding paragraph of this judgment, is not being denied by the parties, except that the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 are denying that petitioner-Krishna Devi is the wife of the deceased-Rajendra Prasad Singh. On the death of the deceased recorded tenure holder-Sant Bahadur Singh on 02.01.2004, firstly Ram Milan Singh, who is one of the sons of Sant Bahadur Singh, got his name mutated in PA-11 under section 33-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act in his sole name and thereafter his sons, who are the respondent nos.4 and 5, approached the Naib Tehsildar by moving mutation application claiming the right over the land in question on the basis of the will deed allegedly executed on 25.12.2003 by the deceased-Sant Bahadur Singh in their favour.
"200. Hearing in absence of party.- Whenever any party to such proceeding neglects to attend on the day specified in the summons, or on any day to which the case may have been postponed, the Court may dismiss the case for default or may hear and determine it ex-parte."

When the order dated 27.01.2006, whereby the restoration application moved by the respondent nos.4 and 5 was rejected, is examined on the touchstone of the provisions contained in sections 200 and 201 of U.P. Land Revene Act, what is found is that the respondent nos.4 and 5 the proceedings of mutation were instituted on the mutation report/application filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 themselves and that the order dated 31.12.2004 was passed by the Naib Tehsildar after discussing the evidence led by both the parties. It is noticeable that the court concerned while passing the order dated 27.01.2006 has recorded a categorical finding that the order dated 31.12.2004 was passed on the basis of discussion of material and evidence available on record and that despite sufficient notice and information the respondent nos.4 and 5 had absented themselves on various dates. The Naib Tehsildar in his order dated 27.01.2006 has also recorded a finding that adequate opportunity was given to the respondent nos.4 and 5 and that their non-appearance on the dates fixed shows that the respondent nos.4 and 5 were not interested in getting the matter decided with expedition which cannot be in the interest of litigation/litigant. The Naib Tehsildar has also observed that if a party or his representative does not appear in the proceedings despite being provided adequate opportunity and in such a situation if an order is passed on the basis of evidence available on record, the same cannot be said to be an ex-part order. Thus, the order dated 27.01.2006 in my considered opinion is in conformity with the provisions contained in section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act which not only requires the party seeking restoration to show good cause for his non-appearance but also requires that the party may satisfy the court that there has been failure of justice. The appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2006 appears to have completely lost sight of the provisions contained in section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and without giving any finding as to in what manner the order dated 31.12.2004 has resulted in failure of justice has passed the order dated 28.03.2006. It is noticeable that the appellate court has not taken into account the fact that the Naib Tehsildar while passing the order dated 31.12.2004 has discussed the evidence available on record and that while passing the order dated 27.01.2006 the Tehsildar has not found the explanation for non-appearance of respondent nos.4 and 5 to substitute good cause for their non-appearance.