Ganga Ram vs D.D.C.

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri Manu Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot No. 370 of Village Ambehta Chand, Pargana Nagal and Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur.

It appears that this plot was recorded in the name of Bhikku and Dikku on the start of consolidation operations in title proceedings between the recorded tenure-holders and one Narsingh son of Suchet, the plots in dispute were finally ordered to be recorded in the name of Narsingh.

It appears that this order has become final. During the pendency, all these title proceedings Bhikku and Dikku executed a sale deed of the disputed property in favour of one Phool Singh.

The petitioners claim on basis of her sale deed in their favour from Bhikku and Dikku. The respondents on the contrary are the vendees of the Narshing. It is, therefore, clear that since in title proceedings, the plot in question has been held to belong Narsingh. The petitioners claim through Bhikku and Dikku cannot at any right or interest in the plot in question on the basis of the final orders in title proceedings. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.8.1999 has directed the plot No. 370 area 0.19.0 included in chak No. 313 be recorded in the name of Dharam Singh son of Jay Singh after expunging the name of the Narsingh. Dharam Singh is respondent No. 4 in the instant writ petition.

It is on these findings that the revision filed by the petitioners had been dismissed. It is the order which is impugned in the writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contented that no rights to accrue in favour of the contesting respondents on the basis of the sale deed executed by Narsingh because such sale deed was executed during the pendency of the title proceedings and in fact during the pendency of such proceedings the valuation of plot No. 370 had been included in the chak of Bhikku and Dikku. This submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have no merit because in title proceedings it was held that this plot No. 370 was recorded in the name of Narsingh.

In view of the categorical finding that the petitioners claim through Bhikku and Dikku, who have been found to have no right title or interest in plot No. 370 while on the other hand the respondents claim on the basis of a sale deed executed by the petitioner''s whose title over the plot No. 370 have been upheld that there appears no illegality in the impugned order. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that he was entitled to certain valuation in his chak which has not been provided, however, this ground cannot be on basis of challenging the order impugned. In case, the petitioners are entitled to any valuation over and above their claim on the basis of sale deed through Bhikku and Dikku, it will be open for them to apply for the same. However, the petitioners are not entitled to any valuation if their claim are based only on the basis of the sale deed in their favour executed through Bikku and Dikku. Accordingly and subject to the directions/observations, this writ petition is disposed of.