Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARASHURAM SINGH AND OTHERS versus D.D.C. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Parashuram Singh And Others v. D.D.C. And Others - WRIT - B No. 885 of 1973 [2005] RD-AH 5190 (5 November 2005)

 

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. 28

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETION  No. 885 of 1973.

Parshuram Singh & anr.

Vs.

Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

Hon'ble Krishna  Murari, J.

Heard Sri Shri Kant for the petitioner.

The dispute relates to  plot no. 202, 203 and 204 of khata no. 121 and plot no. 208 of khata no. 58.

In the basic year the petitioners were recorded as bhumidhar of the said plot.

Respondent no. 4 to 6 filed objection under section 9 A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation  of Holdings Act, on the ground that they were hereditary tenants before  the date of vesting and after abolition  they have become sirdar. The claim of respondent was contested by the petitioners who pleaded that Baragi and Banshi sons of Jaipal who were the sirdar of the land in dispute had executed a registered sale deed dated 16.6.1965 after obtaining bhumiudhari Sanad and accordingly their name was mutated vide order dated 16.6.1969 passed by Sub Divisional Officer.

Admittedly earlier there has been litigation  between the parties in the revenue court. Respondent no. 4 to 6 had filed two suits under Section 229-B of  U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act  seeking declaration in their  favour in respect of disputed  plots. The suits were contested by the petitioners claiming themselves to be vendees from Banshi and Baragi sons of Jaipal. The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 15.4.1968. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by Commissioner Gorakhapur Division Gorakhapur vide judgment dated 7.5.1969.

The consolidation Officer after considering the evidence on record vide order dated 4.1.1971 allowed the objection. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer consolidation on 25.10.1971. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision which has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.1972.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that evidence was adduced before the Settlement Officer Consolidation  to demonstrate  that Second appeal against order dated 7.5.1969 passed by Commissioner Gorakhpur   Division Gorakhpur was pending before Board of Revenue and entire proceedings were liable to be abated under section 5 (2) of the consolidation  of Holdings Act. All the three courts have committed a manifest error of law in relying upon the order passed by learned Commissioner treating the same to be  final between the parties.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

Before the Settlement Officer Consolidation a question answer obtained from  Board of Revenue showing that some case is pending was  filed by the petitioners to demonstrate that  order dated 7.5.1959 passed by Commissioner  had not become final and the proceedings were liable to be abated.

The Settlement Officer Consolidation after analyzing the same has recorded a finding that the alleged question answer does not contain detail of any appeal number or the detail of the disputed land  and as such  refused to place any reliance on the same. In any view of the matter, if any appeal against the order of commissioner was pending before Board of  Revenue the petitioners could have filed proper evidence  to establish the fact. However, he failed to do so. The only  document filed by him in the form of question answer having no details about the case  has rightly been disbelieved by the Settlement Officer consolidation. The same finding has been confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

The right of the parties in the land in dispute having been finally determined by the Board of Revenue is binding and shall operate  as resjudicata. All the three courts have rightly placing reliance on the same have dismissed the objection filed by the respondent no. 4 to 6 and  I find  no illegality in the same.

In view of the aforesaid discussions there is no scope for interference in the impugned order passed by Consolidation Authorities. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

Dated 5.11.05/g/


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.