High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hari Lal v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 17893 of 1990  RD-AH 5238 (6 March 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17893 of 1990
Hari Lal vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under :
One Baboo Lal, the father of the petitioner was tenure-holder of the land in dispute. During consolidation proceedings he is alleged to have moved an application under Section 5(1)(c) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') seeking permission to transfer the land in dispute. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the application and thereafter, a sale deed dated 27.4.1988 was executed by him transferring 5/6th share in favour of respondent no.3 and 1/5th share in favour of respondent no.4 who happened to he his wife and daughter respectively. Subsequently, Baboo Lal moved an application to recall the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation granting permission for transfer of the land. During the pendency of the said application Baboo Lal died. An application to substitute the petitioner who was deaf and dumb was moved under guardianship of one Brij Lal who is cousin of the petitioner being the son of his father's brother. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 18.10.1989 dismissed the application moved on behalf of the petitioner as not maintainable as he could not be represented through Brij Lal who was neither the natural guardian nor appointed to act to guardian to represent the interest of the petitioner by any court of competent jurisdiction. The Settlement Officer Consolidation further found that once the sale deed was executed in pursuance to the permission granted by the Settlement officer Consolidation the order stands given effect to and was not liable to be recalled. Feeling aggrieved a revision was filed on behalf of the petitioner again under guardianship of Brij Lal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on 19.6.1990.
During pendency of the writ petition, respondent no.4 has died and the petitioner has been substituted in her place as her legal heir and representative.
I have perused the impugned judgments. Brij Lal not being the natural guardian of the petitioner could not act as his guardian without being so appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction and thus the application moved by him on behalf of the petitioner for substitution in place of deceased Baboo Lal was rightly rejected. Further the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both have rightly held that once the sale deed executed in pursuance to the permission granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation the order granting such permission stands given effect to and was not liable to be recalled.
In my opinion no illegality has been committed by the courts below in passing the impugned orders.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.