Ramnath And Another Vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Basti And Others

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

58 paragraphs · 6,249 words

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J

Parties to the litigation belongs to common ancestors. In basic consolidation records names of original petitioners, i.e., Ram Nath and Kripa Nath sons of Ram Sumer and Bujhawan, were recorded probably on a ground being Karta of a joint Hindu family, parties were member of it and land in dispute (Khata No. 112 and 338) was ancestral land, whereas original petitioners claimed ownership on land in dispute being self acquired.

An objection was filed by contesting-respondents that on above ground their names be recorded as co-tenure and on basis of statement of Bujhawan and Ram Naresh, objection was allowed vide an order dated 15.03.1965 passed by the Consolidation Officer.

Above order was challenged by way of filing a belated appeal at behest of petitioners that decision was wrongly passed on basis of statements only, whereas it ought to have been considered on merit. Delay of about 10 years was condoned and belated appeal was allowed vide order dated 11.10.1976 and matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order on merit. Relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter:

"à¤†à¤¦à¥‡à¤¶

In pursuance of above, the Consolidation Officer on basis of oral and documentary evidence passed a fresh order dated 13.12.1978, whereby it was held that property in dispute was ancestral and contesting respondent were co tenure. Claim of original petitioners of self acquisition was rejected. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis supplied)

Original petitioners being aggrieved by aforesaid order filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was allowed vide order dated 28.02.1979, whereby the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside. It was directed that on Khata No. 112 and 334 name of appellants Kripanath and Ramnath (petitioners herein) be recorded and that their of self acquisition of land in dispute was accepted. Relevant part of order dated 28.02.1979 is reproduced hereinafter:

Aforesaid order was thereafter challenged by contesting respondents by way of filing a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed vide order dated 05.12.1980 and order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation was set aside and order passed by Consolidation Officer was affirmed. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

à¤†à¤¦à¥‡à¤¶

Aforesaid order dated 05.12.1980 is challenged before this Court at behest of original petitioners by means of present writ petition filed in 1981, which is finally heard and decided after about 45 years.

Sri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that when matter was remitted back by Appellate Authority it has to be decided on merit, however, on remand the Consolidation Officer has erroneously relied on statements recorded earlier and allowed objections of contesting respondents, whereas the Appellate Authority has rightly considered all aspects of case and on basis of revenue record returned a specific finding that on basis of Khatauni 1323 Fasli and 1359 Fasli respondents have also individually acquired some property whereon original petitioners were not recorded as co-tenure holders.

Similarly so far as land in dispute is concerned, i.e., Khata No. 112 and 334, it was solely acquired by original petitioners and, therefore, appeal was rightly allowed on basis of revenue record of 1323 Fasli that it was not acquired by Ram Sumer and Bujawan sons of Birja. Learned counsel further submitted that even a member of joint Hindu family can acquire independent property.

10.

Learned counsel further submitted that aforesaid findings returned by Appellate Authority was wrongly interfered by Revisional Authority and by erroneously placing reliance on statements recorded in first round of litigation, without taking note that when matter was remitted in earlier round of litigation by Appellate Authority, it was directed that matter be decided on merit. He further submitted that only on ground that name of all respondents were recorded as co-tenure for about a decade after first order was passed by Consolidation Officer, cannot be considered an adverse factor since subsequently order of Consolidation Officer was set aside, therefore, adverse effect, if any was no longer exist.

11.

Per contra, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents, has supported the impugned order that when matter was remitted back to Consolidation Officer to consider it on merit, the effect of statements recorded earlier were not set aside.

Therefore, it was not legally incorrect when Consolidation Officer as well as Revisional Authority has also taken note of said statements alongwith statements recorded subsequently.

12.

Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that Revisional Authority has considered case in a very detail manner and returned findings on each issues involved, which does not require any interference being not shown perverse.

13.

I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material available on record.

14.

The pedigree, as mentioned in para 4 of present judgment is not under dispute that original petitioners, i.e., Ram Nath and Kripa Nath and contesting respondent, Ram Naresh, belonged to common ancestors as well as that jointness of family was not much disputed even by petitioners. Therefore, the family remained a joint family and entire property come from ancestors remain joint property of an undivided joint family, except a land if acquired independently from own source by any member of join family.

15.

According to Sijra, Fakir has 4 sons namely Bihari, Birja, Dasrath and Mahaveer. Bihari and Dasrath died issueless. Mahaveer was younger, therefore, Birja was acting as Karta and therefore his name was recorded and consequently name of his son, Bujhawan was recorded in Revenue records. However, the dispute arose when land in question, i.e., Khata No. 112 and 334 was recorded in revenue record solely in the name of petitioners, i.e., Ram Nath and Kripa Nath sons of Bujhawan, whereas contesting respondents filed objections that it being a joint property, their names may also be recorded as co-tenures being sons of Mahaveer, brother of Birja.

16.

The burden to prove that land in dispute was a joint property was on contesting respondents, whereas burden to prove that land in dispute was self acquired was on original petitioners. On basis of record, it could conclusively be concluded that original petitioners have not come up with any material that land in dispute was self acquired by them except their names were recorded. How property in dispute was self acquired by Birja, when undisputedly he was part of Joint family and evidence of partition was very weak. Therefore, from the evidence of contesting respondents as well as statements recorded in first round of litigation as well as statements recorded after remand, it would be evident that claim of respondents of co-tenure was accepted as well as that statements recorded earlier were remained relevant. Even after matter was remitted by Appellate Authority in first round of litigation. Therefore, there was no legal error when same was considered by Consolidation Officer as well as Revisional Authority alongwith other statements and documentary evidence.

17.

A plea that there was a partition in joint family was not sustainable since evidence in this regard on basis of statements of witnesses appears to be very vague and weak as witnesses were not able to state, when partition took place. Some have said about 15-20 years ago and some have said that partition took place about 100 years ago, however, it being not supported by any document, therefore, it was rightly rejected by Consolidation Officer as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation.

18.

Another factor which is also relevant is that after the Consolidation Officer passed order dated 15.03.1965, the land in dispute remained in name of petitioners as well as contesting respondents being co-tenure holders. Petitioners have never taken any steps for a decade to challenge it and have filed an appeal after a decade, which was allowed and matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order. Their chak were also remained undivided, which shows land remained a part of joint family. Birja had taken advantage of position of Karta after his two brothers died issueless and third brother Mahaveer was not active and recorded name of his son solely without adding name of contesting respondents.

19.

At this juncture it would be appropriate to reproduce some paragraphs of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Dorairaj vs. Doraisamy (Dead) Through Lrs and others, 2026 INSC 126 as under:

"32. On the plea of prior partition or division in status, the High Court recognised that separate enjoyment of portions, installation of irrigation facilities, or even obtaining borrowings individually, do not by themselves establish partition in law. What is required is a clear and unequivocal intention to sever the joint status. The High Court correctly emphasized that all relevant conveyances described the interests conveyed as undivided shares, that there was no mutation evidencing division, and that there was no separate payment towards borrowings. In the absence of any declaration or conduct evidencing an intention to divide, the inference of continued joint family status was inevitable."

20.

The outcome of above discussion, on facts as well as on law, is that contesting respondents have able to show that property in question always remained a joint property and their names were wrongly deleted despite they belong to common ancestors. Petitioners were absolutely failed to show that how and under what manner, they have self acquired the property in dispute. Their claim remain unsupported by any pleading i.e. documentary and oral.

21.

There are multiple evidence on record that parties remained a joint family that they resided in one house and there is no specific finding on record that any partition took place, therefore, land in dispute always remained a part of joint property and accordingly all parties remained co-tenure holders. Petitioners here have also not taken any step for partition. There was no evidence of any act or clear intention of partition.

22.

A well reasoned order passed by Consolidation Officer upheld by Deputy Director of Consolidation by another reasoned order, cannot be interfered since there is no perversity. The Appellate Authority has wrongly traveled beyond the evidence and recorded finding of partition and self acquired property without any evidence, only on basis of revenue entry, without any consideration, whether such entries were supported by any evidence i.e. documentary or oral and therefore, has recorded a perverse finding.

23.

The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

24.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Ramnath And Another vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Basti And Others

Judgment