High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Bimla v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 10953 of 1983  RD-AH 13031 (4 August 2006)
Court No. 54
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 10953 OF 1983
Smt. Bimla Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and another.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
This writ petition has been taken up in the revised list. Sri Subhashish Banerjee Advocate is present for the petitioner.
The sole contesting respondent Smt. Jigna stands substituted by Karingan. The dispute revolves from the plot No. 92 situated in village Tharuapur, Pargana Rasoolpur, Tehsil Dumariaganj, District Basti. In the basic year Khatauni, the name of the petitioner stood recorded on the disputed plot. An objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) was preferred by Smt. Jigna on the basis of a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner stood mutated in the revenue records. The grievance of the objector before the Consolidation Officer was that though she had gone to the office of Sub Registrar on the relevant time but she was misled and on account of fraud being practiced on her, she endorsed thumb impression on the sale deed believing to be a ''Will'. The payment of sale consideration was also denied. The Consolidation Officer after taking into consideration the evidence arrived at a finding that the sale deed was a validly executed document for valuable consideration and, therefore, the name of the petitioner was rightly entered into the revenue records by means of the order dated 19.4.1982 and dismissed the objection. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act was preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who also confirmed the judgment of the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.7.1982. A revision under Section 48 of the Act was preferred before the Deputy Director Consolidation, who allowed the revision by means of the impugned order dated 13.7.1983.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed the judgments before me and has submitted that since the execution of the document i.e. sale deed was admitted by Smt. Jigna, it can not be said that it was a void document. Two courts below have rightly come to a conclusion that the sale deed was a voidable document but at no point of time, the contesting respondent ever tried to get the sale deed cancelled, therefore, the courts below correctly rejected the objection of the contesting respondent. The order of Deputy Director Consolidation is altogether illegal. No cogent reasons have been given for setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the three judgments of the courts below. The objection raised by the contesting respondent was that Karingan practiced fraud and she was made to believe and she put her thumb impression on the ''Will' as she had gone for getting the ''Will' registered whereas she came to know subsequently that it was a sale deed. However, it is also a fact that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner's husband in respect of a land situated in village Tarkulia whereas the sale deed was in favour of the petitioner Smt. Vimla. The Deputy Director Consolidation completely overlooked and failed to decide that in the event, the contention of the contesting respondent was to be believed that she had put her thumb impression on both the documents then how could she plead ignorance on the subsequent date regarding sale deed. The sale deed was a registered document and specially when the contesting respondent admitted that she had gone to the office of the Sub Registrar and put her thumb impression then the question of fraud having been practiced on Smt. Jigna was a fact to be proved by the contesting respondent herself. It is also to be noticed that Smt. Vimla was already in possession of the disputed plot. Her name stood mutated and she was recorded in the basic year Khatauni. In the circumstances, I conclude that the Deputy Director Consolidation has failed to decide the questions and set aside the judgment of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation only on the basis of suspicion. Besides it is also a fact to be noticed that it is own admission of Smt. Jigna that she wanted to execute a ''Will' in favour of Karingan, husband of the petitioner and after the death of Smt. Jigna, Karingan has been substituted in place of contesting respondent.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the judgment of the Deputy Director Consolidation dated 13.7.1983 is set aside. There shall be no order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.