Sadhu v. Ddc

Judgment Reserved on 6.12.2023 Delivered on 12.12.2023 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1318 of 1978 Petitioner :- Sadhu Respondent :- DDC Counsel for Petitioner :- Bl Verma,B.L.Verma,K.K.Bajpai,Sachida Nand Tripathi,Sp Soni,Swaraj Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- Sl Yadav,Ganesh Kumar Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondents.

¶2This is a case arising out of a proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Acts, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1953').

¶3Father of original petitioners filed an objection that name of original respondent no.2 (Janki) was wrongly mentioned in revenue records, despite he was in possession over land in dispute.

¶4The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.12.1972 has accepted objections filed on behalf of father of original petitioners and name of original respondent no.2 (Janki) was expunged from revenue records. Relevant finding is mentioned hereinafter: "

बैनामा1375

फ┙㜆म⓹⑲दि नांक 24-2-68

क 㞏⹷दि यागयाहै। 1375

फ┙㜆म⓹⑲

रामअचቧᯔवग 9

꿈쩔 था। इसलिቧᯔ誆鍆꿈쩔ानक 砓石क 砓石ओरस斀化 स्ताव斀化꿈쩔बैनामाम⓹⑲भी

यहनहीलिቧᯔखादिक वहस्वयंइसभूदिमपरक ादिव꿈쩔थाऔर्ቅ 斀化तागኘᮘक 㞏⹷भी

क ादिव꿈쩔क रादि याहैब㝼㝱,क लिቧᯔखाहैदिक

बैनामा ारक 㞏⹷चादिह誆鍆दिक आरा꿈쩔ी

दिन꿈쩔ा湈岄मुवै ापरक ादिव꿈쩔 खीቧᯔह㞏⹷क र

पूኘᮘतयः

रपुस्तमांगभुगतक र⓹⑲और

अपनानामक ाग꿈쩔ातसरक ारीम⓹⑲ 꿈쩔 क राቧᯔ斀化व斀化

,

बैनामा ारक ा

1375

फ┙㜆स斀化

आ꿈쩔तक क ब्꿈쩔ाहुआनह련서क्य㞏⹷दिक इसक 斀化्ቚ माኘᮘम⓹⑲ंउन्होंन斀化誆鍆क भीगवाहनही

दि यानक 㞏⹷湈岄खसराम⓹⑲हीक ब्꿈쩔斀化क ाइन््ቖा꿈쩔है। जि꿈쩔सस斀化बैनामा ारक ाक व्꿈쩔ा

्ቚ माणिኘᮘतह㞏⹷सक 斀化। उपर㞏⹷섾솫दिवव斀化चनाक 斀化आधारपरमैइसदिनष्क 䁲䦛 परपहुंचताहूं

दिक 꿈쩔ानक 砓石

1365

फ┙㜆स斀化हीगांवछ㞏⹷瞓屆क रचቧᯔागयाऔरउसक 斀化सामन斀化क 砓石

रामअचቧᯔक ाक व्꿈쩔ाह㞏⹷गयाथा। 꿈쩔बउसक ाख斀化तदिनक ቧᯔता

समझा

त㞏⹷

रिरस्त斀化 ार㞏⹷क 斀化हक म⓹⑲बैनामाक रदि याजि꿈쩔नक ाक 㞏⹷湈岄क ब्꿈쩔ा खቧᯔनह련서हुआ।

बैनामाक 斀化 ालिखቧᯔखारिर꿈쩔क ा꿈쩔हांतक ्ቚ 滄溙है꿈쩔बउनक ाक ब्꿈쩔ाहीनह련서है

औरक ब्꿈쩔斀化क 斀化आधारपररामअचቧᯔवा ीइसभूदिमक ापहቧᯔ斀化हीसीर ारह㞏⹷न斀化

क ाअधिधक ारीह㞏⹷गयाहैतब ालिखቧᯔखारिर꿈쩔क ा्ቚ 滄溙हीनह련서उठता

अतःवा

दिबन् ु1

स्वीक ारात्मक तथावा दिबन् ु2

नक ारात्मक दिनस्तारिरतदिक 誆鍆꿈쩔ात斀化हैं। " (Emphasis Supplied)

¶5Aforesaid order was challenged by respondents before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by way of filing an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 27.2.1973. It was held that Janki (original respondent no.2) has executed a sale deed in favour of other respondents and that land was in his possession and it was handed over to vendees also. Entry made in revenue records that Janki was "Farar" was rejected on basis of documents available on record. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter: "

भूदिमቧᯔ斀化खदिनयमावቧᯔीक 斀化अन्तगतअसቧᯔक ास्तक ारक 㞏⹷प-क 10

क 砓石दिIप्पኘᮘी

꿈쩔ारीक रनाअदिनवाय है। इसतरहरिरस्प㞏⹷न्ड⓹⑲I न斀化प聈时म⓹⑲क ब्꿈쩔斀化क ाइन््ቖा꿈쩔दिबना प-क 10

क 砓石दिIप्पኘᮘी꿈쩔ारीदिक 誆鍆हरफ꿈쩔M वगቧᯔतसादिबतहुआतथाइस

फर꿈쩔ीइन््ቖा꿈쩔क 斀化आधारपररिरस्प㞏⹷न्ड斀化न्I क ानामआरा꿈쩔ीदिन꿈쩔ा湈岄परवग 9 म⓹⑲

गቧᯔतढंगस斀化 꿈쩔 दिक यागयाहै।

रिरस्प㞏⹷न्ड斀化न्I न斀化1

साቧᯔक 砓石जिसचा湈岄क 砓石रसी ्ቚ स्तुतदिक याहैतथा

ቧᯔगानक 砓石रसी ्ቚ स्तुतदिक याहैदिक न्तुरिरस्प㞏⹷न्ड斀化न्I न斀化हरसाቧᯔक 斀化जिसचा湈岄क 砓石

रसी तथाउसक 斀化महसूቧᯔजिसचा湈岄क 斀化ቧᯔगानक 砓石रसी ्ቚ स्तुतक रक 斀化यह

आपलिO नहीदिक याहैदिक रिरस्प㞏⹷न्ड斀化न्I क ाक ब्꿈쩔ाआरा꿈쩔ीदिन꿈쩔ा湈岄परቧᯔगातार

है।

भूदिमቧᯔ斀化खदिनयमावቧᯔीक 斀化अन्तगतरिरस्प㞏⹷ड斀化न्I क ाक ब्꿈쩔ातथावग

क ा

इन््ቖा꿈쩔फर꿈쩔ीसादिबतहुआऔर꿈쩔ानक 砓石क 斀化बयानस斀化स्प䃝剭हुआदिक अपीቧᯔान्I

क 㞏⹷बैनामाक 斀化आधारपरमौक 斀化परक ब्꿈쩔ा 斀化दि 誆鍆है। तथा꿈쩔ानक 砓石न斀化बैनामाक 砓石

वैधादिनक ताक 㞏⹷भीअ ाቧᯔतम⓹⑲आक रक 斀化सादिबतदिक याहै। इसतरहदिव्ቛान

च┙㜆अ┙㜆न斀化गቧᯔतढंगस斀化रामअचቧᯔरिरस्प㞏⹷न्ड斀化न्I क 㞏⹷फर꿈쩔ीवगቧᯔतक ब्꿈쩔ाववग

क 斀化आधारपरसीर ारक रारदि याहैऔरअपीቧᯔान्I क 斀化बैनामाक 㞏⹷वैधादिनक

नह련서मानाहैबैनामाबहक अपीቧᯔान्I वैधादिनक सादिबतहुआतथाअपीቧᯔ

त नुसारस्वीक ारक 砓石ग湈岄।

" (Emphasis Supplied)

¶6Aforesaid order was challenged by father of original petitioners by way of filing a revision. However, it was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was held that Janki was not 'Faraar', and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- "

꿈쩔वाब 斀化त斀化हु誆鍆दिवप聈时ीन斀化क हादिक धारा145

क ादिनኘᮘय꿈쩔ानक 砓石क 斀化प聈时म⓹⑲

हुआ31-5-50

क 斀化बा क 㞏⹷湈岄मुक माब斀化 खቧᯔीक ानहीहुआ। धारा145 क 斀化

मुक मारामअचቧᯔदिनगरानीक Oा गवाहथाधारा61

क 斀化मुक मों14-3-49 क 㞏⹷

꿈쩔ानक 砓石क 斀化प聈时म⓹⑲दिनኘᮘयहुआदिनगरानीक Oा क 砓石अपीቧᯔखारिर꿈쩔हु湈岄। 20-2-71

क 㞏⹷रामअचቧᯔन斀化꿈쩔㞏⹷꿈쩔ानक 砓石क 斀化दिवरु矂敦बयानदि याथाउसक 砓石नक ቧᯔधारा

बीक 斀化मुक म⓹⑲है।

क ास्तक ार꿈쩔ानक 砓石थ斀化

16,17,

साቧᯔहु誆鍆꿈쩔ानक 砓石न斀化ख斀化त

व्ययक रदि याअपन斀化रिरस्त斀化 ारक 㞏⹷फ꿈쩔M बैनामादिक या

,

अतःफरारीक 砓石बात

गቧᯔतहै। च┙㜆अ┙㜆क 斀化यहां꿈쩔ानक 砓石क ाव्यानहुआअतः꿈쩔ानक 砓石फरारक ैस斀化है।

अगर꿈쩔ानक 砓石फरारथ斀化त㞏⹷जि꿈쩔सक 砓石जिसदिवቧᯔमृत्युमानी꿈쩔ानीचादिह誆鍆त㞏⹷꿈쩔ानक 砓石

क 㞏⹷वैस斀化क ावैसाफरीक क्योंबनायागया꿈쩔हांतक क ब्꿈쩔斀化क 斀化इन््ቖा꿈쩔ातहैवह

क भीक भीक 斀化हैऔरभूቧᯔ斀化खदिनयमावቧᯔीक 斀化दिवरु矂敦है। अगरबहसक 斀化लिቧᯔ誆鍆माना

꿈쩔ायदिक दिनगरानीक ता क ादिब꿈쩔हैत㞏⹷दिनगरानीक ता क ाउ섾솫बयानउनक 斀化क 斀化श

क 㞏⹷समा롑鴋क र 斀化ताहैऔरपरदिमजिसवक ब्꿈쩔斀化क 斀化आधारपरधारा

म⓹⑲

दिनगरानीक ता क 㞏⹷क 㞏⹷湈岄अधिधक ारनह련서दिमቧᯔ斀化गा।

मैस┙㜆ब┙㜆अ┙㜆च┙㜆क 斀化दिनኘᮘयऔरदिनगरानीक ता क 斀化तक  स斀化सहमतहूँ 꿈쩔ानक 砓石

फरारनह련서हैबैनामाठीक है꿈쩔ानक 砓石न斀化स्वंयक ब्꿈쩔ाधिडቧᯔीवरक रन斀化क 砓石बात

क हीहैदिनगरानीक ता क 斀化प聈时म⓹⑲क ब्꿈쩔斀化क ाइन््ቖा꿈쩔दिनयदिमतनहीहैउसस斀化उस斀化

क 㞏⹷湈岄अधिधक ारनहीदिमቧᯔसक तास┙㜆ब┙㜆अ┙㜆च┙㜆क ादिनኘᮘयम⓹⑲क 㞏⹷湈岄्ቔु दिI नही है। " (Emphasis Supplied)

¶7Aforesaid two orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively are challenged in present writ petition.

¶8Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that original respondent no.2, Janki was recorded as 'Faraar' in revenue records, therefore, he was not in possession over the land in dispute. Sale deed executed in favour of other respondents would not have any legal consequence since possession of land in dispute in pursuance of aforesaid sale deed was not handed over as vendor (Janki) was not in possession over land in dispute and he was rightly recorded as 'Faraar' in revenue records. Counsel for petitioners referred the findings returned by the Consolidation Officer in this regard that recital of sale deed states that vendee would take steps for possession.

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that documents relied upon by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have no legal basis since it does not prove that original respondent no.2 (Janki) was in possession over land in dispute.

¶10Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that findings returned by two authorities i.e. Appellate as well as Revisional Authority that Janki was not 'Faraar' were based on various documents, therefore, could not be considered to be a perverse finding.

¶11Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there was a dispute between Ram Achal (father of original petitioner no.1) and Janki (respondent no.2) under Section 229 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as in proceedings undertaken under Section 145 Cr.P.C., Janki was found in possession over land in dispute, therefore, entries made in the revenue records that Janki was 'Faraar' was contray to the documents on record.

¶12Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶13Issues which have cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether name of Janki, respondent no.2 in revenue records was correctly recorded as 'Faraar' or not and as to whether there would be any effect of certain proceedings, undertaken between Ram Achal (father of petitioner no.1) and Janki, respondent no.2 in the present case qua to possession over land in dispute.

¶14As referred above, since there are two concurrent findings against the petitioners, therefore, this Court could interfere only when they are perverse or beyond jurisdiction and in this regard relevant paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Krishnanand (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553 are mentioned hereinafter: "12. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for re-appreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. In the present case, though the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the authorities below and came to the opposite conclusion on matter of facts, the High Court did not do so on the ground that the authorities below acted in excess of their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by perversity.

¶13We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have entered into re-appreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities below, especially since, the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor acted perversely. The High Court has no where stated that it was of the view that there is any perversity, much less the High Court failed to demonstrate any such circumstances."

¶15The findings returned by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority are mainly based on documents on record which are not under dispute. There were two proceedings between the parties, one under Section 229 of the Act of 1950, and another under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and in both the proceedings Janki, respondent no.2 was found in possession over the land in dispute.

¶16Aforesaid findings could not be contradicted since no documents to oppose the same were placed on record.

¶17The other argument was in regard to recital of sale deed that vendee has to take steps for possession over land in dispute and that the Consolidation Officer has held that vendee was not in possession over the land in dispute, when he executed the sale deed which is not on record.

¶18As referred above, it has not been disputed that proceedings under Section 229 of the Act of 1950 as well as under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were undertaken wherein Janki was found in possession over land in dispute.

¶19Recital of the sale deed would only indicate that further proceedings in pursuance of sale deed has to be undertaken by the vendee and not by the vendor.

¶20There was no entry of Form P.A.10, therefore, no benefit of it could be granted to the petitioners. The irrigation slips filed on behalf of petitioners were not sufficient to prove of their possession, since there was a break in continuity. No other documents were found sufficient to prove the case of petitioners rather on basis of documents available claim of the respondents was found proved.

¶21Judgments relied on by counsel for the petitioners of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh and others Vs. Smt. Harbans Kaur, AIR 1995, P & H 186 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whereas the judgment cited by counsel for the respondents of this Court in Motil Lal Vs.D.D.C. & Ors, 2023:AHC197946 would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as it was held that initial burden to prove that Form P.A.10 was properly prepared and was served on real Kashtkar, was on petitioner but from records and orders, it would be evident that the petitioners have failed to discharge initial burden of prove that Form P.A.10 was properly prepared in accordance with due procedure.

¶22In view of the above discussion, since the findings returned by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority, were based on materials available on record and there is no document on record or any other material to suggest that there is perversity in the impugned orders.

¶23Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :-12.12.2023 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad