Chandra Pal vs D.D.C.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri D.S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kripa Shankar, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the orders dated 3.7.2014, 12.3.2014 and 24.8.2013 passed by the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3 respectively.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the dispute relates to khata No. 319 which was recorded in the names of Ram Aautar son of Shiv Charan and Ram Kripal and Ram Khelawan sons of Darshan in the basic year.

An objection under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the Chandra Pal, the petitioner, claiming that the name of Ram Khelawan is wrongly recorded over the land in question and that it be expunged.

The Consolidation officer on 3.5.2011 allowed the objection and directed the name of Ram Khelawan and others be expunged. The consequential appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 3.8.2011. Ram Khelawan and others filed a Revision being Revision No. 57/114 which was allowed on 8.5.2012, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision.

After remand, the Consolidation Officer on 24.8.2013 rejected the objection and maintained basic year entry and he further directed for partition of the holding. The consequential appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 12.3.2014.

The petitioner, therefore, preferred a revision No. 104 which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Therefore, all three orders passed by the Consolidation authorities have been challenged in the writ petition.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ram Khelawan was ordered to be recorded over the land in dispute m C.L.R.D. (Correction of Land Records Drive) which proceedings were summary in nature and therefore not binding. In 1981, Ram Khelawan and Ram Kripal sons of Darshan and Ram Bilas son of Shiv Charan filed a suit under section 229/176 of the U.P. Zamindan Abolition & Land Reforms Act claiming a declaration that the plaintiff No. 3 Ram Bilas son of Shiv Charan was co-bhumidhar of the land in dispute being the third son of Shiv Charan. It was also f prayed that the share of the parties being partitioned as follows: Ram Kripal, f Ram Khelawan, Ram Bilas and Ram Aautar and that separate khatas be constituted accordingly. This suit was dismissed on 24.1.1981 holding that Ram Bilas, plaintiff No. 3 was not the co-bhumidhar and the issue No. 1 in the suit was decided accordingly.

9. As regards the issue No. 2 which was for the partition of the shares of the parties, it was directed that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 file a separate suit d for the said purpose. A copy of this judgement is on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The defendant in this suit, Ram Autar, was the father of the petitioner Chandra Pal.

On the village coming under consolidation operations, the petitioner I filed the objection as noticed above.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the parties belong to different families. The entry in favour of the contesting respondents is forged. No plea has been set up by the contesting respondents of explaining as to how their names came to be recorded over the plot in question, especially in view of the fact that their parentage is different and they did not belong to the family of the petitioner. The names of the contesting respondents were admittedly recording during Correction of Land Records Drive (CLRD), which proceedings were summary in nature and, therefore, not binding He has lastly submitted that the finding recorded by the respondent No. I that the judgment, in the suit under section 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would operate as res judicata, is not correct. He has submitted lengthy and elaborate arguments and has also cited various judgments in support of this contention.

Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the contesting respondents were rightly recorded over the land in dispute in C.L.R.D. proceedings. He has also referred to the judgment of the suit under section 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in support of his contention that by the said order, it was held that the petitioner is co-tenure holder of the land in dispute. This judgment has become final, as It was never challenged by the father of the petitioner during his life time. The objection under section 9A-2 was filed seven years, after the issuance of notification under section 9 of the Act, only after the death of his father. It has therefore lastly been contended that the petitioner is bound by the actions of his predecessor in interest, who accepted respondents as his co-tenure holders during his life time, and such a long standing entry cannot be disturbed.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It appears horn a perusal of the record that the mother of the contesting respondents started living with Shivdutt after the death of his first wife and, therefore, it appears that the contesting respondents though not the sons of Shivdutt but the sons born out of her wedlock with Darshan, were accepted by Shivdutt and his son Ram Autar, the father of the petitioner as co-tenure holders. There appears to be no other justification for Ram Autar, not having challenged the entry in favour of the respondents for over 50 years.

It has also come on record, on the basis of the oral testimony of the parties, that the contesting respondents are in possession over the land in dispute, to the extent of their share therein. It is also not in dispute that the objection under section 9A-2 was filed by the petitioner after the death of his father. It is for this reason that the objection was seven years beyond time.

I am not convinced with the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the judgment in the suit under section 229-B/176 would operate as res judicata and, therefore, I am not considering the elaborate arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner on this ground and I am also not referring to the case law cited by him in support of his contention that the judgment would not operate as res judicata.

It is also true that the Correction Of Land Records Drive was undertaken under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and, therefore, the order passed in such drive in favour of the petitioner would not be binding in regular title proceeding and to this extent the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is found to be correct.

However, in spite of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders because the name of the respondents was allowed to continue in the revenue records for over 50 years and Ram Autar, who had reason to be aggrieved by such entry, never challenged the same during his life time, despite him having contested the suit under section 229-B/176, which had been filed by the contesting respondents alongwith Ram Vilas, the alleged brother of Ram Autar.

As already noticed hereinabove, it has also been recorded by the Courts below that the respondents are in possession over their respective shares and this is all the more reason, why the impugned orders do not call for any interference at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to offer any explanation as to why the entries in favour of the contesting respondents were never objected to or challenged by his father during his life time.

Accordingly and for the reason given above, I refuse to exercise my equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner and also because in my considered opinion, substantial justice has been done between the parties by the impugned orders. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.