Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAGHU NANDAN AND OTHERS versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raghu Nandan and others v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. - 1154 of 1976 [2007] RD-AH 16815 (24 October 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1976

Raghunandan and others ............ Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria

and others ............. Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri H.S.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N.Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

Dispute relates to khata no. 43 situate in village Pidara district Deoria. In the basis year the khata in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioners. Admitted pedigree of the parties is as under :

Indar

/

-------------------------------------------------

/ /

Thakur Khushi

/ /

------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

/ / / / / / /

Nakched Billar Deoki Ram Raj Dhan Raj Gun Raj Mani Raj

/ (Mst.Ramtulia) / / / /

/ Sohan Chedaru ------------------- -----------------

------------------------------------ / / / /

/ / / / Bhola Chotani Sarju Dukhran

Tunmun Pujan Ram Narain Shyam Narain

An objection was filed by respondent no.3 claiming co-tenancy rights over the land in dispute along with the petitioners on the ground that she was daughter of Billar and after his death her mother Mst. Maktulia @ Ramtulia inherited his share and after her death she being the legal heir is liable to be recorded over the khata in dispute as co-sharer. Another objection was filed by Kedar and others which is not in dispute in the present writ petition inasmuch as the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation became final against them. The case set up by respondent no.3 was contested by the petitioners on the ground that she was not daughter of Billar who died issueless and respondent no.3 was daughter of Kedaru resident of village Khoraram and had no concern with the petitioners' family or the property in dispute. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.11.1974 dismissed the objection filed by respondent no.3. Against which she went up in appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 4.9.1975 allowed the same. Appellate order was challenged by the petitioners in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.2.1976 dismissed the same. Aggrieved the petitioners have approached this court.

Before the Consolidation Officer respondent no.3 produced a copy of extract of Birth Register which went to show that a daughter was born to Billar on 2.10.1949. Extract of Citizen Register of 1951 was also filed to prove that she was daughter of Billar. One Sohan son of Deoki who was member of the family appeared in the witness box in respect of the claim of respondent no.3. The petitioners filed extract of Kutumb Register of village Pidara to show that the name of Kaushilya was not recorded in the family of Billar. They also filed a copy of the statement said to have been made by Ramtulia mother of respondent no.3 in some case in the court of Nyay Panchayat wherein she made a categorical statement that she had no son or daughter. Petitioners also led oral evidence of of Shyam Narain and Bansh of village Pidara and one Awdhoo of village Khora Ram to establish that Mst. Kaushilya was not daughter of Billar and Mst. Maktulia @ Ramtulia but she was daughter of Khaderu of village Khoraram.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have wrongly and illegally failed to consider the statement made by Mst. Maktulia @ Ramtulia made in the case before Nyay Panchayat that she had no son or daughter. It has further been urged that Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have wrongly relied upon the entries made in Citizen Register of 1951 which was not a statutory document prepared under any Statute and as such was inadmissible in evidence. They have also misread the entries made in Citizen Register and wrongly relied upon the same inasmuch as in the said document Kaushilya was recorded as daughter of Mst. Muturna and Birth Register, 1951 has also wrongly been relied upon as in the said document the caste of Billar was recorded as Koniya whereas he belonged to Kohar caste.

In reply, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.4 has urged that the impugned judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on proper appraisal of evidence brought on record and there is no infirmity in the same.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Analyzing the evidence Consolidation Officer found that Kutumb Register filed on behalf of the petitioners goes to show that the name of Mst. Kaushilya was not recorded in the family of Billar. He also placed reliance on the oral testimony of one Awdhoo who in his testimony has stated that Smt. Kaushilya is daughter of Khaderu of village Khoraram and the alleged statement of Mst. Maktulia mother of respondent no.3 said to have been made in some case before the Nyay Panchayat stating that she had no son or daughter. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, he came to the conclusion that respondent no.3 is not the daughter of Billar. Settlement Officer Consolidation placed reliance upon the Birth Register produced on behalf of respondent no.3 wherein there was an entry of a daughter having born to Billar. He also placed reliance upon the Citizenship Register wherein respondent no.3 is recorded as daughter of Billar. Analyzing the oral evidence adduced by the petitioners, Settlement Officer Consolidation found that the same is not reliable inasmuch as the witness who stated that respondent no.3 was daughter of Khaderu of village Khoraram and did not know anything about the family of Khaderu and they only stated that respondent no.3 was daughter of Khaderu and in such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on their oral statement. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has further placed reliance on the oral statement of Sohan who was a member of the family and admitted that respondent no.3 was daughter of Billar. The same findings have been confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the statement of Mst. Maktulia @ Ramtulia the mother of respondent no.3 said to have been made before Nyay Panchayat in some case to the effect that she had no son or daughter. Except for the copy of the alleged statement there is no material on record to establish the veracity of the said statement. In the absence of any material to establish the correctness and veracity of the said statement Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation had rightly not placed any reliance upon the said document. Further the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on analysis of documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record and it is not for this court to reassess the evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out that Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have either misread any evidence or have failed to consider any material peace of evidence. In the absence of anything having been pointed out in this regard, this court will not reassess the evidence. Findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation based on proper appraisal of evidence are not open to interference by this court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

Dt.24.10.2007

nd.


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.