High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shri Ram Naresh & Another v. D.D.C. & Otherss - WRIT - B No. 2198 of 1976  RD-AH 9813 (22 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2198 of 1976
Ram Naresh and another
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri H. S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai for the contesting respondents.
This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9 A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act'). Dispute relates to plots no. 791 and 795/2 which in the basic year were recorded in the name of petitioners. An objection was filed by respondent no. 3 and father of respondent no. 4 and 5 claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of 1/4th share on the basis of sale deed executed by one Durbali Dubey in their favour. Case set up in the objection was that Mahendra, Parasuram and Durbali Dubey were the original tenants of the disputed plots. Mahendra and Parasuram executed sale deed of their 3/4th share in favour of respondent no. 3 Raj Kumar and Nand Kumar father of respondents no. 4 and 5. Durbali Dubey executed sale deed of 1/4th share in favour of the petitioners but their names could not be mutated. Taking advantage of the fact the contesting respondents filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act and got it decreed on the basis of admission made by Durbali, whose name inspite of sale deed executed by him was continuing in the revenue records. After getting knowledge of the decree, the petitioners filed suit no. 1429 of 1960 for cancellation of the same which was decreed on 31.8.1962. Appeal filed by the contesting respondents was also dismissed. However when the matter was pending before the court in second appeal the proceedings were abated due to consolidation operations. Respondents contested the claim of the petitioners.
Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.11.1974 dismissed the objection of the petitioners and maintained the basic year entries merely on the ground that original sale deed which was the basis of the claim of the petitioners was not filed nor the loss was proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the copy of the sale deed was inadmissible in evidence. It was also held that sale deed was not proved by producing the marginal witness and Durbali Dubey who is stated to have executed the sale deed was not produced as witness.
In appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation the petitioners filed an affidavit that original sale deed is lost. Appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that once Durbali Dubey executed the sale deed on 29.7.1957 he had no right to make any admission in favour of the contesting respondents in the suit filed by them and since the petitioners were not party in the said suit the decree passed therein is not binding upon them. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.7.1976 dismissed the revision.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision by a slip shod judgment without applying his mind or considering the case set up by the petitioners and the same is illegal and perverse. In reply it has been contended that since the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed a judgment of affirmance as such he was not required to record detail reasons.
I have considered the contentions of the rival parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that it has been given in a very casual manner in as much as there is neither any appreciation of the facts of the case, nor the law applicable. It is totally devoid of reasons for the conclusion arrived at. As a last court of fact the Deputy Director of Consolidation is expected to render a reasoned judgment. In view of above there appears to be considerable force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Certain other arguments have also been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties touching the merits of the case. However, since the petition is liable to succeed on the first ground and matter requires to be remanded back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to be decided afresh in accordance with law, I do not find it necessary to consider the same for any observation made by this court may cause prejudice to the either party.
In view of above the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned judgment dated 12.7.1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation stands quashed. The matter is relegated back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made herein above after due opportunity of hearing to the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months of the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before him.
No order as to costs.
Date : 22.5. 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.