Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAIJ NATH RAI versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baij Nath Rai v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 216 of 1973 [2007] RD-AH 8611 (8 May 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 216 of 1973  

 Baijnath Rai and another      

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri H. S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. K. Singh appearing for the contesting  respondents.

In the basic year the  land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Two sets of objection under Section 9-A 92) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') were filed by the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents challenging the basic year entry. Petitioners filed their objection on the ground that they had planted trees over the land in dispute after taking the same from Zamindar and as such they are owner of the trees standing therein. On the other hand, respondents no. 3 to 9 had filed objection on the ground that the trees standing over the land in dispute was planted by them with the permission of Zamindar and they were Bhumidhar of the grove and the entry of Gaon Sabha was incorrect. Two objections filed by the contesting parties were contested by the Gaon Sabha.

Consolidation Officer decided the objection vide common order dated 14.2.1971. The objection filed by the petitioners was allowed and that of respondents no. 3 to 9 was dismissed. The contesting respondents went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 20.10.1971 set aside the order of Consolidation Officer and maintained the basic year entry in favour of Gaon Sabha. Two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, one by the petitioners and the other by the contesting respondents. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide common order dated 29.9.1972 dismissed both the objections. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.

Learned single Judge after hearing the parties vide order dated 10th December, 1984 held as follows:

"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in holding that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties with respect to trees standing on Banjar land of the Baon Sabha, I find that there are two conflicting single Judges' decisions of this Court on this point. In Rama Vs. State of U. P. and others (1971 RD 520) this Court ruled that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties with respect to trees standing over the Banjar land of Gaon Sabha. On the other hand, in Shambhu and others Vs.  Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others (1975 AWC 469) this Court held that the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to decide the title relating to trees standing on Banjar land of the Gaon Sabha."

However, finding a conflict in the judgment of two learned single Judges on the point as to whether the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to decide the title relating to trees standing on the Banjar land of Gaon Sabha, a reference was made to constitute a larger Bench to resolve the controversy. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 29th July, 1986 while considering the reference as observed as follows :

"Any land, therefore, having trees in such number as to preclude cultivation becomes grove-land. And once a land banjar or otherwise, becomes grove land the consolidation authorities shall have jurisdiction to decide. In cases where right or title is claimed on trees standing over land what has to be decided is if the trees standing over it were such in number that it became grove land. If the finding is in the affidavit the consolidation authorities shall have jurisdiction to decide right or claim of parties. If the finding is in negative the objection has to be dismissed and parties directed to seek their remedy in Civil Courts.

In view of what has been stated above there appears no conflict in the two decisions which appear to have been correctly decided on their own facts. The petition may now be listed before Hon'ble single Judge."

In so far as the claim of petitioners in respect of the land is concerned, the learned single Judge in its judgment dated 10th December, 1984 has clearly held that the petitioners did not claim any right in the land in dispute in their objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act and, therefore, they are not entitled for any right in the land in dispute. Their claim in respect of the land in dispute was further held to be barred on the ground that the consolidation officer had granted them rights only in the trees and had maintained the basic year entry in favour of Gaon Sabha, yet the petitioners did not file any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer and the same became final.

Thus, issue with regard to the rights of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute stands finally settled by the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10th December, 1984.

Now the question whether the consolidation authorities will have jurisdiction to decide the title with respect to trees standing over the land in dispute has to be analysed in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 29th July, 1986. The Division Bench has clearly ruled that jurisdiction to decide the right and title of the trees standing over the land in dispute will depend upon the fact as to whether number of trees are such that the land has become grove and unfit for cultivation and if answer is in affirmative, consolidation authorities shall have jurisdiction. However, if the answer is in negative, objection has to be dismissed. The Consolidation Officer though allowed the claim of the petitioners in respect of trees but he has clearly held that the land in dispute is not in the nature of grove. Settlement Officer Consolidation has not returned any finding in this regard. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation again after analysing the oral evidence with regard to plantation of trees has recorded a clear finding that trees are there less in number and it cannot be held that prior to Zamindari Abolition, the land in dispute was in the nature of grove. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are factually incorrect and the trees standing on the land in dispute are such in number that it has become unfit for cultivation and the land in dispute assumed the shape of grove.

In view of the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the land in dispute is not in the nature of grove and in the light of law laid down by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 29th July, 1986 passed inter-se between the parties, the consolidation authorities will have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties in respect of the trees standing over the land in dispute leaving no scope for interference in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision and directing the parties to seek remedy with respect of title in respect of the trees before the Civil Court.

Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Date : May 8, 2007

Dcs.


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.