Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAN MOHAMMAD & OTHERS versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SONBHADRA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jan Mohammad & Others v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Sonbhadra & Others - WRIT - B No. 24695 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9202 (9 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24695 of 2006

Jan Mohammad and others  Vs.  Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sonebhadra and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.  It appears that petitioners have got no chivalry.  They are trying to usurp the land of a woman.  Consolidation officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation decided the case in favour petitioners.  Deputy Director of Consolidation very rightly set aside the said judgments in revision no.1 of 2005 decided on 9.3.2005.  Right from 1356 fasli (1.7.48 to 30.6.49) till the basic year the name of Chiragan was recorded and after the death of Chiragan name of his widow Smt. Phekani was recorded in the revenue records.  It appears that when consolidation proceedings started, petitioners got an idea in their minds that they could usurp the property and filed objection saying that the property was jointly owned by husband of Smt.Phekani alongwith them.  In India normally male people make efforts that name of lady tenure holders may not be included in the revenue records.  However the same thing is not true in the reverse order.  Ladies normally do not make any effort for deleting the name of their male co-sharers from the revenue records.  The order passed by D.D.C. is not only perfectly legal but also eminently just.  If it had been otherwise, occasion to interfere could have arisen.

Petitioners claimed that Chiragon was recorded in the revenue records in the representative capacity and they being his brothers were unrecorded co-sharers alongwith him.  The D.D.C. rightly held that under Muslim Law there is no concept of joint family property.  In consolidation matters such wild claims are after made.  Presumption of correctness of revenue entries, particularly of 1356 fasli (which is most relevant year for the purposes of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act) can not be lightly taken to have been  rebutted particularly when it is sought to be rebutted by Males.

Writ petition is dismissed.

9.5.2006

RS/-    


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.