High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Bali v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 5210 of 1981  RD-AH 5933 (10 March 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5210 of 1981
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and Others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. C. Tripathi appearing for respondent no. 2.
The facts are that during consolidation operations, a objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the respondent no. 2 claiming rights over the khatas in dispute on the ground inter alia; her father Bijuli was the tenant of the disputed khatas which were inherited by his wife Smt. Madhura and after her death respondent no. 2 is entitled to inherit the same as daughter; gift deed executed by Smt. Madhura in favour of the petitioner was declared to be illegal and void by the Court and hence the name of the petitioner is liable to be expunged. The petitioner resisted the case of respondent no. 2 denying that she was daughter of Bijuli. It was further pleaded that he was a near collateral of Bijuli who had executed a registered deed of agreement accepting the petitioner as owner of the half share of the property. After death of Bijuli his half share was inherited by his widow Smt. Madhura. Since she had no issue she executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother. After death of Madhura mutation proceedings were initiated by the petitioner which was dismissed by Tehsildar. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Collector on 27.9.1960. Feeling aggrieved, Gaon Sabha filed a revision. The Additional Commissioner made a reference to the Board of Revenue for dismissing the revision. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference and dismissed the revision on 5.2.1964.
The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.7.1977 allowed the objection filed by respondent no. 2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal. Another appeal was filed by respondent no. 3 against the order of Consolidation Officer dismissing his claim of half share along with the petitioner. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 29.12.1977 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The appeal filed by respondent no. 3 was also allowed. Respondent no. 2 went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the same by impugned order dated 21.1.1981.
The Consolidation Officer held that respondent no. 2 was daughter of Bijuli. He has however failed to return any finding with regard to validity or otherwise of either the registered deed executed by Bijuli accepting the petitioner to be entitled to half share or the gift deed executed by Smt. Madhura.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation after appraisal of entire evidence brought on record found that respondent no. 2 is not proved to be the daughter of Bijuli and Smt. Madhura. He further found that on the basis of the gift deed and deed of agreement it was proved that the petitioner was in possession. The copy of Parivar register produced by respondent no. 2 was disbelieved by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that it does not bear the signature of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha and the name of respondent no. 2 seems to have been added subsequently by manipulation. Placing reliance on the death register of 1941 produced by the petitioner which went to establish the death of minor daughter of Bijuli, he came to the finding that the daughter born to Bijuli died at a very tender age. He also found that Smt. Madhura had admitted in gift deed that she was issueless and there was no material on record to establish that gift deed was declared void by any competent authority as alleged by respondent no. 2.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the documentary evidence which formed the basis of the finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, placing reliance on some observations made in a judgement of Naya Panchayat that Smt. Madhura had a minor daughter, held that respondent no. 2 was daughter of Bijuli. The detail finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on this issue has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on this issue is very cursory. Further without any basis or evidence he held that the deed of agreement executed by Bijuli and the gift deed executed by Smt. Madhura were never acted upon.
A perusal of judgement of the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that he has failed to consider the evidence on record and the findings recorded by him are very cursory without reference to the material on record. Whereas the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation are after detail analysis and appraisal of evidence on record and there is no reasons to differ with the same.
In the result, the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.1.1981 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed.
However in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.