High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Prithivi Singh v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Lalitpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 48921 of 2006  RD-AH 15490 (6 September 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48921 of 2006
Deputy Director of Consolidation ,Lalitpur & Others........Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard Sri V. S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The facts are that during consolidation operations, an objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the' Act') was filed by the contesting respondents claiming rights over the land in dispute on the basis of a sale deed alleged to have been executed in their favour. The petitioner contested the proceedings. The defence set up by the petitioner was that his name came to be mutated over the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour in mutation proceedings. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.9.2002 allowed the objection filed by the contesting respondents and directed their name to be recorded over the land in dispute. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively. Both the petitioner and the contesting respondents were claiming rights on the basis of sale deed of the same date executed in their favour by the erstwhile tenure holder. The contesting respondents produced the sale deed in their favour and proved the same before the Consolidation Officer by producing marginal witness. The Consolidation Officer also inspected the record of sub-registrar and found that the sale deed executed in favour of contesting respondents was registered in the record whereas the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was not found to be registered in the records of the Sub-registrar.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation also found that the petitioner has failed to produce the sale deed in his favour and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The petitioner produced the sale deed before the revisional Court, which has been disbelieved on the ground that the name of the petitioner has been incorporated by making cutting and overwriting in the sale deed.
It has been urged by the learned counsel that in mutation proceedings his name came to be recorded in the revenue record and the said order is binding and operated as res judicata between the parties.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is well settled that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and findings recorded therein are not binding on the regular side and any order passed in mutation proceedings does not operate as res judicata.
It has next been contented that the original sale deed was produced before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and he ought to have remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer providing an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the same. The case of the contesting respondents before the Consolidation Officer was that the petitioner by practicing fraud had taken the receipt issued from the office of sub registrar on the basis of which he obtained the original sale deed from the office of the Sub-registrar and incorporated his name by making cutting and overwriting in place of them as vendee.
The original sale deed has been produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the same goes to show that the name of the petitioner has been incorporated after making cutting in different ink and totally in different hand writing.
The findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer after making inspection of the records of the sub-registrar that the sale deed was registered in the name of contesting respondents and the cutting and overwriting in the original sale deed produced before me clearly go to establish that the petitioner manipulated his name as vendee in the sale deed by making cutting and overwriting. The sale deed was never executed in his favour.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly did not place any reliance on the sale deed produced by the petitioner and dismissed the revision. Thus, there is no scope for interference by this Court in the impugned judgments of the Consolidation authorities.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.