- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Decided
- 30 November 2023
- Case no.
- WRIB 303/1977
Judgment
Reserved on 28.11.2023 Delivered on 01.12.2023 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 303 of 1977 Petitioner :- Jagdev Respondent :- Harihar Nath Counsel for Petitioner :- A.N. Bhargava, Counsel for Respondent :- S.C., ,H.M. Srivastava, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
¶1This is second round of litigation during consolidation proceedings. In first round matter reached upto the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it was remitted back to Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide afresh.
¶2On remand, an appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 07.09.1974, whereby possession of petitioner/ appellant was found continuous from 1954, on basis of a mortgage deed and it was held that since no proceedings were undertaken for eviction, therefore, he was settled with the right of Bhumidhari, whereas respondents were found neither in possession nor otherwise held to be entitled for right on land in dispute. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter: "विावित भूवि पर कब्जा जगेब का ुबली के रेहन लिलखाने के साथ हुा ुबली ने विावित गाटे का रेहन जगे के पक्ष े विनांक 17.06.54 को विकया ुबली के कब्जे ें अड़चन पड़ी उसने अपने रूपये के लिलये न्यायालय ीानी े ाा प्रस्तुत विकया यह ाा जगे बना ुबली हुआ। जगे एं ुबली की ओर से न्यायालय ीानी ें काय हुआ। हरिरहनाथ ुबल की ओर से साक्ष्य कक्ष े आये उनका कथन न्यायालय विानी के स क्ष विनांक
28.05.56 कोलि लखागया।उन् होनेअपनेकथनमेंस् वीकारवि कयावि कदबु रलीने जगदेवके हकमेरहे ननामालि लखाह।ै जोखेतलि लखाहैउसपरजगदेवका कब् जाहैउन् होनेअपनेकथनमेदबु रलीद्व ाराजगदेवके पक्ष मेंलि लखेहुएरहे न तथाजगदवे के कब् जेकोस् वीकारवि कयादबरलीएवंहरि रहरनाथकाबदलनअवैधु घोवि षतहआ।दबरलीद्व ाराजगदेवके पक्ष मेंलि लखागयारहे ननामाभीअवैधु ु हआ।ऐसीस्थि स् थधि तमेंजगदेवकाकब् जाअनुज्ञ ात् मकनहीहोसकता।जगदेवकाु कब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपरदबरलीएवंहरि रहरनाथके कथनसेप्र माणि णतह।ै जगदेवु काकथनअधि धनस् थन् यायालयके समक्ष लि लखागयाह।ै उसनेअपनेकथनमें कहावि कजि सकमीदारनेउसकाहलबलै खेतसेवि नकालवि दयाऔरतबउसने दीवानीमेंदावावि कया। जि सकमीदारहरि रहरनाथके अलावाऔरकोईथा। जि सकमीदारकीओरसेकोईवि ववादनहीहैइससेप्र माणि णतहैवि कजि सकमीदारका कब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपरनहीरहा। हरि रहरनाथनेकब् जावि ववावि दतभविू मपर न् यायालयदीवानीमेंजगदेवकास् वीकारवि कयादबरलीभीकब् जाजगदेवकाु स् वीकारवि कया।ऐसीस्थि स् थधि तमेंकब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपरजगदेवकाभीमाना जायेगा।जगदेवकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपर17.06.54 सेहआऔरतबसेु कब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपरवि नरन् तरजगदवे काहीह।ै उसके वि वरू द्ध कोईबेदखली कादावाहरि रहरनाथकीओरसेसमयके अन् तगरतनहीहआ।ु कब् जायातोअनुज्ञ ात् मकहोनायाअध् यासनके आधारपरहोगा।कब् जा यातोवैधहोगायाअवैध।जगदेवकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपरअवैधदस् तावेज के आधारपरहुआ।जगदेवकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपरनतोवैधहैऔरन अनुज्ञ ात् मक।ऐसीदशामेंजगदेवकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभविू मपरअवैधएवं अध् यासनके आधारपरमानाजायेगा।जगदेवकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभविू मपर बतौरअध् यासीनके सन्1954 सेवि नरन् तरहैजगदवे कासमयके अन् तर बेदखलनहीवि कयागया।जगदेवकोवि ववावि दतभूवि मपरसीरदारीस् वत् वहाजि सल होचुकाह।ै हरि रहरनाथकास् वत् ववि ववावि दतभविू मपरबहुतपहलेहीसमा्त हो चुकाह।ै "(Emphasi uplied) Emphasis supplied)
¶3A revision was filed at instance of the respondents, which was allowed in part, vide order dated 23.08.1976, whereby order of Appellate Authority was modified to the extent that respondents were held Bhumidhar and petitioner was held to be Asami in view of Section 21(Emphasi uplied) d) of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Emphasi uplied) hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950"). Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter: "मैनेपक्ष ों के वि वद्व ानवकीलोकोसुनाऔरसम् बस्थि न् धतपत्र ावलि लयों का अवलोकनवि कया। गाटासं०866 क्ष ेत्र फल1 बीघा2 वि बस् वा6 घूरकावि ववादह।ै यहगाटा आधारवषरके अणि भलेखमेंवि नगरानीकतारकीभविू मधरीदजरह।ै वि वपक्ष ीजगदेवने यहदावावि कयावि कवहवि ववावि दतभूवि मकामूतरवि हनह।ै वि वद्व ानचकबन् दीअधि धकारी नेजगदेवकोवि ववावि दतभूवि ममेकोईहकनहीवि दया।वि वद्व ानसहायकबन् दोबस् त अधि धकारीचकबन् दीनेअपनेआदशे वि दनांक 07.09.74 द्व ाराजगदेवको वि ववावि दतभविू ममेजमीं दारीउन् मूलनअधि धवि नयमकीधारा7.9.74 द्व ाराजगदेव कोवि ववावि दतभूवि ममेजमीं दारीउन् मूलनअधि धवि नयमकीधारा210 के अन् तगरत सीरदारीकाहकवि दया।सहायकबन् दोबस् तअधि धकारीचकबन् दीके इसीआदेश वि दनांक07.09.74 के लि खलाफयहवि नगरानीदायरकीगईह।ै दोनोपक्ष ों के अनुसारवि नगरानीकतारतथावि वपक्ष ीदरु बलीऔरब्र ?्म देव के बीचमेंवि दनांक19.12.53 कोबदलबनहुआथा।जि जसके अनुसारवि ववावि दत गाटादरु बलीऔरब्र ?्म दवे कोवि मलाथा।तथादरु बलीऔरब्र ?्म देवकागाटासं० 211 वि नगरानीकतारकोवि मला।इसके बाददरु बलीऔरब्र ?्म देवनेवि दनांक
17.06.54 कोजगदेवके हकमेंरहे ननामालि लखा।चकबन् दीन् यायालयमें पहलेहरि रहरवदरबलीआवि दके बीचमेंमुकदमाचलाथा1953 काबदलबनु अवैधावि नकमानागयाऔरवि नगरानीकतारवि ववावि दतगाटेकाभूवि मधरकरारवि दया गया।वि नगरानीकतारके वि वद्व ानवकीलनेयहतकर वि गयावि कचँविू कवि ववावि दतगाटा दरबलीआवि दके बदलबनमेंवि दयागयाथा।इसलि लयेदरबलीआवि दकाकब् जाु ु वि ववावि दतगाटेपरवि नगरानीकतारकीअनमु धि तसेथाऔरदरबलीआवि दद्व ाराु वि वपक्ष ीजगदेवके हकमेंलि लयेगयेरहे ननामेके आधारपरजगदेवकाकब् जा दरबलीआवि दकीअनुमधि तसेहीमानाजायेगा।इसलि लयेजगदेवकाकब् जाु वि नगरानीकतारकीअनमु धि तसेहीमानाजानाचावि हयेऔरजगदेवकोवि ववावि दत भूवि मके सीरदारीकाहकनहीवि दयाजानाचावि हये।वि वपक्ष ीजगदेवके वि वद्व ान वकीलनेयहतकर वि कयावि कबदलबनअवैधावि नकथा।इसलि लयेजगदेवका कब् जावि नगरानीकतारके लि खलाफमखु ालफानाकब् जामानाजानाचावि हयेऔर जगदेवकीवि ववावि दतभूवि मसेसीरदारीकाहकवि दयाजानाचावि हये।यहसहीहै वि कबदलबनअवैधावि नकथा।इसलि लयेजगदेवकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि मपर अवैधावि नकहोवेगा।परके वलअवैधावि नककब् जेहोनेसेहीजमीं दारीकाहक नहीवि मलसकता।क् योवि कधारा210 के अन् तगरतसीरदारीकाहकपानेके लि लये यहभीसावि बतहोनाआवश् यकहैवि कजगदेवकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभविू मपर वि नगरानीकतारके वि बनाअनुमधि तके था।दरबलीआवि दकाकब् जावि ववावि दतभूवि म परहरि रहरनाथकीअनमु धि तसेथाऔरदरु बलीआवि दकीअनमु धि तसेहीजगदेव नेवि ववावि दतभविू मपरकब् जावि कयाइसलि लयेजगदेवकाकब् जाहरि रहरनाथकी अनुमधि तके नहीमानाजासकता।ऐसीस्थि स् थधि तमेंजगदवे कोकब् जेके आधार परजमीं दारीउन् मूलनअधि धवि नयमकीधारा210 के अन् तगरतवि ववावि दतभविू ममें सीरदारीकाहकनहीवि दयाजासकता।बहरहालचँविू कजगदेवववि ववावि दतभविू म कामुतरहीनहैऔरवि ववावि दतभविू मजमीं दारीउन् मूलनके पूवरदखीलकारी कास् तकारी थी, इसलि लये जगदेव वि ववावि दत भूवि म का जमीं दारी उन् मूलन अधि धवि नयमकीधारा21 डीके अन् तगरतआसामीहीदगे ा। वि नगारीआंणि शकरू पसेस् वीकारकीजातीह।ै सहायकबन् दोबस् त अधि धकारीचकबन् दीकाआदेशवि दनांक07.09.74 रद् वि कयाजाताहैऔरयह आदेशवि दयाजाताहैवि कवि नगरानीकतारवि ववावि दतभूवि मकाभविू मधररहेगातथा वि वपक्ष ीजगदवे वि ववावि दतभविू मकाआसामीरहेगा।ग्र ामअणि भलेखों के तद्न सु ार अमलदरामकरवि दयाजावे।" (Emphasi uplied) Emphasis supplied)
¶4Sri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that possession of petitioner was held by all authorities since 1954 over land in dispute. It has also been held by all authorities that no suit was filed or any action was taken by respondents or by Gaon Sabha to evict petitioner. Therefore, findings returned by Appellate Authority that petitioner has attained right of Bhumidhari was wrongly interfered to the extent that petitioner was given right of Asami only as well as respondents were wrongly held Bhumidhar though their right was rejected by two lower authorities.
¶5Sri Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submitted that in view of Section 204 of Act, 1950 even today in case petitioner may be able to show that respondents have not taken any steps to evict him, still he would get benefit of above referred provision.
¶6None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents though a counter affidavit was filed on their behalf.
¶7Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. Relevant paragraphs of counter affidavit are mentioned hereinafter: "9. That in reply the contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the objection filed by the petitioner was not only dismissed on the technical grounds but also on the other grounds e.g. on the own admission made by the petitioner and absence of any entry regarding possession in favour of petitioner. It is, further, submitted that after consideration of entire records of the case consolidation officer rightly dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner.
¶10That in reply to the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that statement made by the deponent in civil suit was not relevant and learned S.O.C. has rightly ignored that statement. Petitioner himself had himself admitted that he was not in possession over the plot no. 866.
¶11That the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not correct as stated and as such denied. It is submitted that both the theory of exchange and mortgage were held as void and against the provision of law. As the certified copy of the statement made by the deponent was accepted by the A.S.O.C. without affording an opportunity to the deponent to confront it and to meet the same learned D.D.C. remanded the case before the S.O.C. for consideration of case after taking other evidences, if any, as fresh. Petitioner never entered into the possession over the plot in dispute and he had himself admitted this position in the civil suit filed by him.
¶12That in reply to the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is submitted that learned S.O.C. has wrongly without properly appreciating the facts and law applicable to the case allowed the appeal. It is very pertinent to mention here that petitioner neither pleaded, nor claimed to be in adverse possession over the land in dispute and has failed to prove his possession much less continuous possession over the land in dispute for over the statutory period of limitation. Petitioner has himself admitted that he was not in possession over the plot in dispute. It is, further, submitted that the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned A.S.O.C. are based of no evidence and are liable to be set aside."
¶8There are two important aspects of the case. First was 'interchange' between Durbali and Harihar Nath (Emphasis supplied) Respondents) and thereafter 'mortgage' by Durbali in favour of Jagdev (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner). Therefore, in case 'interchange' was declared void, then 'mortgage' would have no legal consequence and possession of petitioner would be without any legal authority.
¶9The Appellate Authority has held that 'interchange' was already declared void, therefore, 'mortgage' has no legal consequence, however, petitioner's possession was found continuous from 1954 and since no proceedings were undertaken to evict him, therefore, he was declared Sirdar.
¶10The Revisional Authority held that once 'interchange' was found to be illegal, therefore, 'mortgage' also become illegal. The Revisional Authority however held that on basis of illegal possession no Sirdari right would be given to petitioner. Sirdari right will be with original owner, i.e., Harihar Nath (Emphasis supplied) Respondent) and on ground of possession, petitioner would be Asami only under Section 21(Emphasis supplied) d) of Act, 1950.
¶11The above findings are self contrary. Revisional Authority on one hand held that petitioner could not get any right on basis of mortgage deed and on other hand declared him Asami on basis of mortgage deed only.
¶12As soon as 'interchange' was declared void, mortgage also become void, therefore, possession of petitioner become illegal which remained continued for many years and admittedly no proceedings for eviction was taken at behest of respondents and, therefore, its legal consequence would fall.
¶13In aforesaid circumstances Section 210 of Act, 1950 become important. According to said provision if a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a Bhumidhar or Asami or a decree for eviction obtained in such suit is not executed within the period of limitation, the person taking or retaining possession will become Bhumidhar or Asami as the case may be and legal consequence of it would fall.
¶14In the present case, since mortgage was declared to be illegal by all the authorities, therefore, application of Section 21(Emphasis supplied) d) of Act, 1950 was erroneously applied by Revisional Authority whereas Appellate Authority has rightly applied the provisions of Section 210 of Act, 1950 and held that petitioner become Sirdar since no proceeding of eviction was undertaken.
¶15In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.08.1976 is hereby set aside and order of Appellate Authority dated 07.09.1974 is upheld. Order Date :-01.12.2023 AK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.