NISAR AHMAD & ORS. versus SAMI ULLAH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1855, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1855 : 2024 INSC 820
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. 
v. 
Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9739-40 of 2011)
24 October 2024
[Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue as regards the shares of the parties in the disputed land. High 
Court whether justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy 
Director of Consolidation in revision and holding that the appellants 
had 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 
excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged 
to the respondents. Consolidation authorities whether erred in alloting 
1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. 
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – ss.9(2), 
11(1) – High Court held that the appellants had 1/12 share jointly in 
the plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. 
35, 37, 111 and 112 exclusively belonging to the respondents – It 
also held that the consolidation authorities erroneously alloted 
1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on the 
premise that the land was a joint family property:
Held: No error or perversity in the view taken by the High Court – 
The concept of joint family property which is prevalent amongst the 
Hindus is not known amongst the Muslims – Authorities were not 
justified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining the 
share of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans – High 
Court
duly considered the claim of the appellants as well as of 
the respondents and held that in so far claim of the appellants to 
plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 of Khata No. 99 and plot No. 115 
of Khata No. 100 were concerned, predecessor-in-interest of the 
appellants himself had relinquished those lands in favour of the 
respondents – Relinquishment deed was registered and was never 
questioned by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants during 
his lifetime – Further, validity of the lease in question cannot be 
disputed by the appellants – High Court concurred with the finding 
* Author
1856
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
recorded by the revisional authority and rightly dismissed the writ 
petition filed by the appellants – Appellants entitled to 1/12 share in 
the land comprised in the lease deed and not 1/2 as was wrongly 
held by consolidation authorities. [Paras 22-24]
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Scheme 
of the Act – Stated.
Case Law Cited
Attar Singh v. State of U.P [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928 : AIR 1959 
SC 564; Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2007 SCC 
OnLine All 2196 – referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
List of Keywords
Co-tenancy; Consolidation Officer; Deputy Director of Consolidation; 
Consolidation authorities; Assistant Settlement Officer; Revisional 
authority Shares of the parties; Common ancestor; Disputed 
land; Disputed khatas; Agricultural holdings; Consolidation of 
Holdings; Concept of joint family property not known amongst 
the Muslims; Hindu law; Mohammedans; Predecessor-in-interest; 
Relinquishment deed; Lease deed; Revision application/petitions; 
No error apparent on the face of record.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 9739-40 
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2009 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 6635 of 1974 and CMWP No. 
18 of 1975
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 194 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
M.Z. Chaudhary,
Shariq Zaidi, Aftab Ali Khan, Sayyad Mansoor, 
Ms. Mansi Chahal, Tabarak Hussain, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Shoaid
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1857
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
Ahmad Khan, Kapil Sagar, Aftab Ali Khan, Syed Mehdi Imam, Atif 
Shuhrawardy, Tabrez Ahmad, Pankaj Kumar, S.S. Chauhan, Atif 
Suhrawardy, Mrs. Shamama Anis, Pankaj Kumar, Sharad Chauhan, 
Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.	
The two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment 
and order dated 05.01.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 
of 1974 (Nisar Ahmad and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 
Sultanpur and Ors.) and in Writ Petition No.18 of 1975 (Sami Ullah 
and Anr. Vs. Nisar Ahmed and Ors.). By the aforesaid judgment and 
order dated 05.01.2009, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6635 of 1974 
was dismissed and Writ Petition No.18 of 1975 has been allowed. 
3.	
By order dated 27.04.2009, this Court had issued notice on the special 
leave petition as well as on the prayer for interim relief. Subsequently, 
by order dated 15.01.2010, both the parties were directed to maintain 
status quo prevailing as on 15.01.2010. Thereafter, by order dated 
03.11.2011, leave was granted directing the status quo order to be 
continued in the meantime.
4.	
At the outset, it may be useful to make a brief reference to the 
relevant facts. Zahoor Ahmed, son of Abdul Shakoor, father of the 
appellants, had moved
the Consolidation Officer, Sultanpur under 
Section 9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 
1953 (briefly ‘the 1953 Act’ hereinafter) raising a dispute as to 
Khata Nos. 99 and 100 of village Bhati Jarouli of Miranpur, District 
Sultanpur, U.P., recorded in the name of respondent Sami Ullah and 
others. Zahoor Ahmed claimed co-tenancy in both the Khatas to the 
extent of half share. Since the dispute could not be reconciled, he 
approached the Consolidation Officer. After notice and hearing, the 
Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 06.12.1972 directing 
that the name of Zahoor Ahmed be entered as a co-tenant in Khata 
No. 99 and accordingly partition be made. The shares of Sami Ullah 
and another (respondents herein) were determined to the extent of
1858
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
1/4 each. However, the claim of Zahoor Ahmed of co-tenancy qua 
Khata No. 100 was rejected. Accordingly, direction was issued to 
intimate the parties and to correct the areas of the land in respect 
of the parties so determined by the Consolidation Officer. 
5.	
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 06.12.1972, respondents 
Sami Ullah and others filed appeals before the Assistant Settlement 
Officer under Section 11(1) of the 1953 Act. Similarly, Zahoor Ahmed 
also filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the 1953 Act against the 
said order dated 06.12.1972 rejecting his claim qua Khata No. 100. 
By order dated 25.04.1973, the appellate authority i.e. the Assistant 
Settlement Officer, Sultanpur dismissed all the appeals. In other words, 
order of the Consolidation Officer dated 06.12.1972 was upheld.
6.	
Thereafter, respondents Sami Ullah and others filed a revision 
application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur 
(‘Deputy Director’, hereinafter). Likewise, the legal heirs of Zahoor 
Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed and others (‘appellants’ herein) also filed 
revision before the Deputy Director against rejection of their appeal. 
By the order dated 20.09.1974, the Deputy Director opined that 
Zahoor Ahmed was not entitled to get share in the above Khatas and 
accordingly the order of the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by the 
Assistant Settlement Officer i.e. the appellate authority was modified. 
Deputy
Director while dismissing the revision of Zahoor Ahmed, 
Nisar Ahmed and others allowed the revision of the respondent 
Sami Ullah and others. 
7.	
Appellants thereafter preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 
1974 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (briefly ‘the 
High Court’ hereinafter). By the judgment and order dated 05.01.2009, 
the High Court held that Deputy Director was not justified in importing 
principles of Hindu law while determining the share of the parties 
who were admittedly Mohammedans. Accordingly, the High Court 
held that the appellants have 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised 
in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 
which exclusively belongs to the respondents Sami Ullah and his 
brother Badlu, sons of Abdul Ghafoor. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Writ 
Petition No. 6635 of 1974 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 18 
of 1975 was allowed.
8.	
It is this judgment and order dated 05.01.2009 which came to be 
assailed in the related special leave petitions and upon leave being
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1859
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
granted, the present civil appeals came to be registered. 
9.	
While learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the High 
Court was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy 
Director in revision thereby adversely affecting the rights of the parties, 
learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the 
impugned order. He submits that the order of the High Court is a well-
reasoned and balanced order and therefore should not be disturbed.
10.	 Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received 
the due consideration of the Court.
11.	 Zahoor Ahmed, the predecessor in interest of the appellants, had 
approached the Consolidation Officer under Section 9(2) of the 1953 
Act raising a dispute regarding Khata Nos. 99 and 100. It may be 
mentioned that the Khata No. 99 was recorded in the name of Sami 
Ullah and Badlu (the respondents) whereas Khata No. 100 was 
recorded in the name of Sami Ullah alone. Zahoor Ahmed claimed 
co-tenancy in both the Khatas to the extent of 1/2 share. He also 
claimed half share in Khata No. 100. Since the dispute could not be 
reconciled, the same was raised before the Consolidation Officer.
11.1.	 According to Zahoor Ahmed, the land in question were acquired 
by Mohammad and Abdul Ghafoor, father of Allah Bux, jointly 
for the benefit of the entire family. Thus, they were in joint 
occupation of the land. At
the time of death of Allah Bux, 
Ghafoor was the ‘karta’ of the family and all the sons of Allah 
Bux remained in joint occupation. Zahoor Ahmed claimed that 
he was in joint occupation of the land in question, paying land 
revenue to the extent of his share. Thus, he claimed half share 
in the land in question by way of pedigree.
11.2.	 According to the respondents, their father had acquired the lands 
covered by Khata No. 98 through lease; their father had five 
shares in the said land and one share belonged to Mohammad 
who died in 1942. Though he was survived by his daughter, as 
per family custom, she did not have any share in the lands in 
question. Respondents claimed one share in this land as well. 
Thus, according to the respondents, they had 11/12 share in 
Khata No. 98 and 1/12 share belonged to Zahoor.
11.3.	 In so far Khata No. 99 is concerned, according to the 
respondents, these lands were acquired by their father
1860
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and devolved upon them on the death of their father. They 
challenged the claim of Zahoor to such land on the ground 
that Zahoor had made a dastbardari in their favour in the 
year 1948. Plot Nos. 45, 57, 111 and 112 were claimed by 
the respondents as having been acquired by their father 
Ghafoor. They, however, admitted half share claim of Zahoor 
Ahmed in respect of Khata No. 99 while denying the claim to 
the remaining extent of half. Plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 
was wholly claimed by the respondents denying the claim of 
Zahoor to the extent of half share in the said land.
11.4.	 Consolidation Officer upon consideration of the pleadings of 
the parties in dispute had framed the following issues: 
(i)	
Whether respondents were entitled to 11/12 share of 
Khata No. 98?
(ii)	
Whether Zahoor Ahmed was entitled to half share of 
Khata No. 98?
(iii)	 What was the share of the parties in respect of Khata No. 98?
(iv)	 Whether Zahoor Ahmed was co-tenant of Khata No. 99 
as claimed?
(v)	
Whether the respondents were recorded as the sole 
owner of the land covered by Khata No. 99?
(vi)	 Whether Sami Ullah and Badlu i.e. the respondents were 
entitled to 11/12 share in respect of plot Nos. 31, 94, 95, 
96, 97 and 99 etc. as claimed?
(vii)	 Whether plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 were the sole 
sirdari of the respondents as claimed?
(viii)	 What were the share of the parties qua Khata No. 99?
(ix)	 Whether Zahoor was co-tenant
of plot No. 115 of Khata 
No. 100 as claimed?
(x)	
Whether the respondents were the sole owner of the land 
of Khata No. 100?
(xi)	 What were the shares of the parties qua Khata No. 100?
11.5.	 After noting that it was an admitted position that neither the 
daughter in the family nor their sons got any share in the lands
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1861
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
belonging to the family, Consolidation Officer observed that the 
appellants and the respondents were recorded as co-tenant of 
the land in Khata No. 98. Respondents also admitted the share 
of the appellants in plot Nos. 94, 95, 96, 99, 100 etc. to the 
extent of 1/12. Thus, according to the Consolidation Officer, in 
view of the admission made by the respondents, Zahoor Ahmed 
was the co-tenant and that the dispute was only regarding his 
share. Further, the Consolidation Officer remarked that the 
onus was on the respondent to prove that they were entitled 
to 11/12 share of the land. Consolidation Officer also noticed 
that there was a lease deed of 1922 but what was to be seen 
was whether the lands were acquired jointly.
11.6.	 After discussing the evidence and the materials on record, the 
Consolidation Officer vide the order dated 06.12.1972 held that 
Zahoor Ahmed was in occupation of the plots of land bearing 
Nos. 95, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 107 and as many as five plots 
being 99, 100, 107 etc. were being cultivated by Zahoor. The 
Khasra for the relevant years indicated that Zahoor was all along 
in occupation of the above lands; his name was recorded over 
an area of 3 bighas 10 biswas of lands and he also paid land 
revenue in respect of which large number of revenue receipts 
were on record. Thus, the Consolidation Officer concluded that 
the lands were acquired jointly when
Zahoor Ahmed was a 
minor and his share would be half of the land. Therefore, he 
was entitled to half share in Khata Nos. 98 and 99. In so far 
plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 is concerned, it was held that 
the same remained the exclusive property of the respondents. 
The Consolidation Officer declared that Zahoor Ahmed being 
the co-tenant of Khata No. 99 was entitled to half share thereof. 
Accordingly, it was ordered that the name of Zahoor Ahmed be 
entered as a co-tenant in Khata No. 99 and partition be made 
in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 in the following manner:
(i)
Zahoor
-
1/2
(ii)
Sami Ullah
-
1/4
(iii)
Badlu
-
1/4 
12.	 Against the aforesaid order dated 06.12.1972, altogether three 
appeals were filed before the appellate authority i.e. Assistant 
Settlement Officer- one by Zahoor Ahmed and the other two by
1862
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the respondents. The appeals were filed under Section 11(1) of the 
1953 Act. 
12.1.	 By the common judgment and order dated 25.4.1973, the 
appellate authority i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer, Sultanpur 
dismissed all the three appeals. While dismissing the appeals, 
the appellate authority noted that in the basic year, Khata No.98 
was recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu and also 
in the name of Zahoor Ahmed. Khata Nos.99 and 100 were 
recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. Zahoor Ahmed 
filed objection under Section 9 of the 1953 Act contending that 
in Khata No.99 his name should be recorded. He claimed 1/2 
share in Khata Nos.98 and 99 contending that Satai was the 
common ancestor of both the parties and that he had acquired 
the disputed land from the joint family. According to him, Allah 
Bux and Mohammad were the sons of Satai. Abdul Ghafoor 
was the elder son of Allah Bux and became the ‘karta’ of the 
joint family. After the death of Allah Bux, Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul 
Shakoor and Mohd. Ismail, being sons of Allah Bux, came 
into possession of the disputed land jointly. Mohd. Ismail 
died issueless. The disputed land was recorded in the name 
of Sami Ullah and Badlu being the sons of Abdul Ghafoor as 
‘karta’ of joint family.
12.2.	 Zahoor stated that at the time of death of his father, he was a 
minor and lived with Abdul Ghafoor. Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul 
Shakoor had 1/2 share in the disputed
land. Accordingly, both 
the parties were in possession of the disputed land. 
12.3.	 Sami Ullah and Badlu objected to the claim of Zahoor and 
contended that the land in Khata No.99 was acquired by 
Abdul Ghafoor. Sami Ullah and Badlu admitted 1/12 share in 
the disputed land and denied share of Zahoor in plot No.115 
of Khata No.100.
12.4.	 The primary authority i.e. the Consolidation Officer on the basis 
of the materials of record and the evidence adduced decided 
the share of Zahoor in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 at 1/2 and 
dismissed the objection of Zahoor qua plot No. 115 of Khata 
No. 100. Therefore, Zahoor filed Appeal No. 43 in respect of plot 
No. 115 of Khata No.100. Sami Ullah and Badlu filed Appeal 
Nos. 50 and 51 against the decision of the Consolidation Officer
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1863
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
declaring 1/2 share in the disputed land of Khata Nos. 98 and 
99 as belonging to Zahoor.
12.5.	 The appellate authority was of the view that plot No.35 was 
recorded only in the name of Allah Bux. Zahoor had relinquished 
in favour of Sami Ullah on 30.06.1948. Zahoor also relinquished 
the share of Ismail. Sami Ullah had filed the patta for the first 
time before the Consolidation Officer on 07.05.1992. In the 
settlement exercise, some disputed land was acquired by 
Allah Bux and Mohammed jointly. Plot Nos.111 and 112 were 
recorded in the name of Abdul Ghafoor. The appellate authority 
noted the submission made on behalf of Zahoor that he was 
in possession of the disputed land in Khata Nos.98 and 99 
and paying land revenue and took the view that the disputed 
land was in possession of the joint family. When Shakoor, 
father of Zahoor, had died Zahoor was a minor. Thereafter, 
father of Sami Ullah brought up Ghafoor and Ghafoor lived 
as a member of the joint family. Though the name of Ghafoor 
was not recorded, Sami Ullah admitted 11/12 share of Zahoor. 
According to the appellate authority, Zahoor was in continuous 
possession over the disputed land. The revenue receipts 
indicated that he was in possession of 1/2 share thereof and 
paying the revenue in respect of the said land. As regards plot 
No. 115 of Khata No. 100, the appellate authority concurred 
with the view of the primary
authority. Therefore, the appellate 
authority i.e. the Assistant Settlement Officer upheld the order 
of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed all the appeals. 
13.	 Two revision petitions were filed under Section 48 of the 1953 Act, 
Revision No. 3302 was filed by the respondents and Revision No. 
3312 was filed by the appellants, against the judgment and order dated 
25.04.1973 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in appeal. 
13.1.	 The revisional authority i.e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation 
noted that according to Zahoor, the disputed land was joint 
family property and as such, his share in it was 1/2. Khata 
No. 98 was recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu on 
the one hand and Zahoor on the other hand whereas Khata 
No. 99 was recorded only in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. 
Consolidation Officer had allowed the name of Zahoor Ahmed 
to be in half of Khata No. 98 and Khata No. 99; however,
1864
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
dismissed the claim of Zahoor Ahmed in respect of plot No. 
115 of Khata No. 100. Against the aforesaid decision, appeal 
was filed but the same was dismissed. It was thereafter that 
the revision came to be filed by Zahoor Ahmed.
13.2.	 On the other hand, Sami Ullah claimed that Zahoor had 1/12 
share in Khata No. 98 as well as in Khata No. 99 and none 
in respect of plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100. His objection 
was allowed in respect of plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 but 
was dismissed in respect of the other two Khatas. Therefore, 
he also filed appeals before the Assistant Settlement Officer 
which were however dismissed. Thereafter, the related revision 
petition came to be filed claiming 5/6th share in Khata No. 98 
and exclusively claimed Khata No. 99 for himself and Badlu.
13.3.	 During the revision proceedings, Zahoor Ahmed died and 
he was substituted by his legal heirs (sons) Nisar Ahmed, 
Irshan Ahmed and Ishtiyag Ahmed. The revisional authority 
considered the claim of Sami Ullah. Zahoor Ahmed had disputed 
1/12th share in Khata No. 98 because in the year 1922, the 
disputed land was taken on lease by Abdul Ghafoor: 5/6th share 
from Mohammad Ismail and 1/6th share from the zamindar. 
Mohammad Ismail died in the year 1942. After his death, his 
1/6th share got devolved in 1/12th share, viz, in plot Nos. 35, 
57, 111 and 112. It was noted that Khata No. 99 was recorded 
in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. The
revisional authority 
noted on the basis of the evidence adduced that Shakoor had 
expired in the year 1930. Thereafter, the name of Zahoor was 
recorded as a member of the joint family in Khata No. 98. 
From the materials on record, the revisional authority noticed 
that Zahoor was in possession and paying rent in respect of 
the disputed land. However, the revisional authority accepted 
the contention of Sami Ullah that Zahoor had relinquished 
his share in respect of plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 by way 
of relinquishment deed of the year 1948. Deputy Director i.e. 
the revisional authority noted that relinquishment was by way 
of a relinquishment deed and that Zahoor had admitted his 
signature on it. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve 
the contention of Sami Ullah because in the year 1948, Zahoor 
had relinquished his share in plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112. 
Further, possession of Zahoor Ahmed was also not recorded.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1865
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
Thus Zahoor Ahmed was held to be not entitled to any share in 
so far the said plots were concerned. The lower authorities had 
ignored the relinquishment deed which vitiated their respective 
orders. On the basis of the relinquishment deed, the Deputy 
Director allowed the revision of Sami Ullah in respect of plot 
Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112. As regards claim of Zahoor in respect 
of plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100, the Deputy Director was 
not convinced about the said claim. That being the position, 
the revisional authority upheld the view taken by the lower 
authorities and dismissed the revision of Zahoor Ahmed.
14.	 Assailing the above order of the revisional authority, appellants 
preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 1974 whereas 
respondents preferred Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 before the High 
Court. High Court heard both the writ petitions together as the two writ 
petitions arose out of the same consolidation proceedings in respect 
of Khata Nos. 98, 99 and 100 in village Bhati Jarouli, Sultanpur.
14.1.	 High Court traced the pedigree of the parties. Satai was the 
common ancestor and he had two sons, namely, Allah Bux and 
Mohammad. Mohammad died issueless in the year 1942. Allah 
Bux had three sons i.e. Abdul Ghafoor who died in 1946, Abdul 
Shakoor who died in 1930 and Mohammad Ismail who died 
issueless in 1935. High Court pointed out that the dispute was 
between the
two branches of Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Shakoor. 
Petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 1974 i.e. 
the appellants represented the branch of Abdul Shakoor. The 
contesting respondents of the said writ petition i.e. respondents 
herein represented the branch of Abdul Ghafoor. In the basic 
year, the entries were recorded in the following manner:
(i)	
Khata No. 98 was recorded in the names of the 
respondents Sami Ullah and Badlu as well as in the name 
of Zahoor Ahmed (father of the appellants).
(ii)	
Khata No. 99 was recorded in the names of Sami Ullah 
and Badlu (the respondents).
(iii)	 Khata No. 100 was exclusively recorded in the name of 
Sami Ullah (respondent No. 1).
14.2.	 Zahoor Ahmed, father of the appellants, had filed objection 
before the Consolidation Officer claiming co-tenancy rights
1866
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 to the extent of half share. He also 
claimed one half share in plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100.
14.3.	 According to Zahoor Ahmed (father of the appellants), the 
disputed Khatas were acquired jointly by the common ancestor. 
After the death of Satai and Allah Bux, the name of Abdul 
Ghafoor was recorded since he had attained majority by that 
time and Abdul Shakoor was still a minor. Abdul Ghafoor was 
‘karta’ of the family and he looked after Abdul Shakoor and 
Mohammad Ismail. After the death of Abdul Ghafoor, in view 
of the settlement arrived at between the legal heirs of Abdul 
Ghafoor and Zahoor Ahmed, the parties were in cultivatory 
possession of their respective shares in the disputed Khatas.
14.4.	 On the other hand, Sami Ullah and Badlu (respondents) had 
contended that Khata No. 98 was taken on patta by Abdul 
Ghafoor and Mohammad. In the said patta, share of Abdul 
Ghafoor was mentioned as 5/6 and that of Mohammad 1/6. 
After the death of Mohammad, his share devolved in equal 
proportion upon Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Shakoor. Therefore, 
the appellants who represents the branch of Abdul Shakoor 
got only 1/12 share.
14.5.	 The case of the contesting objectors (the respondents) with 
regard to plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 comprising Khata No. 
99 was that these plots were their exclusive property in view 
of the registered relinquishment deed dated 30.06.1948 (which 
was registered on
07.07.1948 and executed by the father of 
the appellant Zahoor Ahmed) in favour of the respondents. 
They contended that the said Khata was neither recorded in 
the name of Zahoor Ahmed nor was he in possession thereof. 
Respondents were the exclusive owners of plot Nos. 35, 57, 
111 and 112 of Khata No. 99.
14.6.	 After tracing the trajectory of the orders passed by the 
Consolidation Officer, appellate authority i.e. the Assistant 
Settlement Officer and the revisional authority i.e. the Deputy 
Director of Consolidation, the High Court noted that the Deputy 
Director vide the order dated 20.09.1974 had confirmed the 
orders of the lower authorities with respect to plot No. 115 
of Khata No. 100 but had partly allowed the revision of the 
respondents with respect to plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 of 
Khata No. 99 as well as of Khata No. 98.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1867
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
14.7.	 High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 
05.01.2009 held that execution of the relinquishment deed 
in respect of the four plots of land i.e. plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 
and 112 of Khata No. 99 was not denied by Zahoor Ahmed. It 
was a registered document and thus carried the presumption 
of genuineness. High Court further noted that the appellants 
had not questioned the genuineness and correctness of the 
relinquishment deed at any stage of the litigation. Zahoor 
Ahmed was very much alive when the consolidation operation 
had commenced in the village. Though he filed objections and 
had the full opportunity to dispute the relinquishment deed, he 
did not do so. There was no evidence on record to show that 
execution of the relinquishment deed was ever disputed by 
Zahoor Ahmed. On the contrary, the stand of Zahoor Ahmed all 
along was that after the death of his father, he was brought up 
by his uncle Abdul Ghafoor; after attaining the age of majority, 
he might have executed the said relinquishment deed. In the writ 
proceedings, appellants had contended that they did not admit 
the genuineness and the binding nature of the relinquishment 
deed. But such contentions were rejected by the High Court 
on the ground that Zahoor Ahmed during his entire lifetime at 
no point of time had disputed the said relinquishment deed. 
Even otherwise also, the High Court found that said
plots 
were exclusively recorded in the names of the respondents 
which would go to show that Abdul Shakoor had surrendered 
his right and title in favour of Abdul Ghafoor. In view of the 
above, High Court opined that the finding recorded by the 
Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision was justified and 
called for no interference.
14.8.	 As regards plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100, High Court noted 
that all the three authorities below had rejected the claim of the 
appellants holding that the said land belongs to the respondents 
exclusively. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not 
press the writ petition with regard to the said plot. That being the 
position, High Court found no merit in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 
No. 6635 of 1974 and the same was accordingly dismissed.
14.9.	 In so far Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 filed by the respondents 
is concerned, the challenge was to the finding of co-tenancy 
recorded by all the authorities below with respect to Khata Nos.
1868
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
98 and 99 holding that Abdul Ghafoor had half share therein. 
Respondents (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975) 
placed reliance on a lease deed dated 07.05.1922 executed 
by Fateh Bahadur and Jagat Narayan Singh in favour of Abdul 
Ghafoor and Mohammad mentioning their respective shares : 
Abdul Ghafoor had 5/6 share and Mohammad had 1/6 share. 
On the death of Mohammad, his share devolved on Zahoor 
Ahmed to the extent of 1/12 share and the remaining 11/12 
share devolved on the respondents. The said patta (lease) was 
rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that at the 
relevant time, Zahoor Ahmed was a minor and that the lease 
had not seen the light of the day nor was it proved. In appeal, 
the appellate authority held that though the patta (lease) was 
executed by two persons, it was signed by only one person i.e. 
Fateh Bahadur. High Court considered the lease deed dated 
07.05.1922 and noted that land was taken by two persons, 
viz, Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah Bux and Mohammad, son of 
Satai. Abdul Shakoor, father of Zahoor Ahmed was very much 
alive in the year 1922. He had died some time in the year 
1930. It was clear that the lease was taken jointly by Abdul 
Ghafoor and Mohammad and not as a joint family property by 
the two persons. That apart, the concept of joint family property 
prevalent amongst the Hindus was unknown to the Muslims. 
Abdul Ghafoor and Mohammad were the only lessees of
the said 
land. High Court held that the lower authorities had misdirected 
themselves by considering acquisition of the said property by 
Abdul Ghafoor and Mohammad as joint acquisition on behalf of 
the entire family. The source of acquisition of the said property 
was the lease deed dated 07.05.1922 and in the revenue 
records, names of the respondents and of Zahoor Ahmed were 
recorded. The only dispute was with regard to the extent of their 
respective shares. The authorities below had proceeded to allot 
1/2 share to Zahoor Ahmed on the premise that it was a joint 
family property. According to the High Court, the said approach 
was not legally tenable. The revisional authority was also not 
justified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining 
the shares of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans. 
Accordingly, it was held that appellants would get 1/12 share 
in the land comprised in the lease deed and not half (1/2) as 
was decided by the authorities below.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1869
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
14.10.	In that view of the matter, High Court held that the appellants 
would have 1/12 share in the plots comprised in Khata 
Nos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which 
exclusively belonged to the respondents.
14.11.	That being the position, Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 was 
allowed.
15.	 Thus, against the dismissal of Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 6635 of 
1974 and partly allowing of Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975, the related 
special leave petitions were filed. 
16.	 This being the factual scenario, let us now have a brief survey of 
the 1953 Act. The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 
1953 (already referred to as ‘the 1953 Act’) is an Act to provide for 
the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the 
development of agriculture. The statement of objects and reasons 
of the 1953 Act is as under: 
After the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, 1950, there was naturally a pressing 
demand for the consolidation of holdings in the State. 
Since the complicated and numerous types of tenures, 
both proprietary and cultivatory, the greatest stumbling 
blocks in the way of successful consolidation of holdings, 
have been abolished it is an opportune time to start this 
work. The advantages of having in compact blocks all the 
land farmed by one family need only be briefly mentioned. 
Boundary lines should be reduced in
“number and extent, 
saving land and diminishing boundary disputes, larger fields 
would be possible and time saved in making trips to the 
fields. Further, if land were all one piece barriers, such as 
fences, hedges or ditches could be erected to obtain privacy 
and prevent trespassing, thieving and gleening. The control 
of irrigation and drainage water would be easier; control 
of pests, insects and disease would also be less difficult.
16.1.	 Thus, as per the statement of objects and reasons, after the 
enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
Act, 1950, there arose the need for consolidation of holdings 
in the State. It was felt that the advantages of having compact 
blocks of all the lands farmed by one family was too well known.
1870
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Boundary lines would be reduced in number thereby not only 
saving the lands but also reducing boundary disputes. This 
would also lead to larger fields with attendant advantages. It 
could be barricaded properly to prevent trespassing and ensure 
proper irrigation and pest control.
17.	 Raison d’etre of the Act was examined by this Court in Attar Singh 
Vs. State of U.P..1 This Court observed that the object of the 1953 Act 
is to allot a compact area in lieu of scattered plots to tenure-holders 
so that large scale cultivation would be possible with all its attendant 
advantages thus leading to reduction of boundary lines. In the process 
lot of land would be saved resulting in lesser number of boundary 
disputes. While reducing the movement of the farmers from one plot 
to another, consolidation would enure to the benefit of the farmers in 
erecting fences etc. around a compact area to prevent trespassing 
and thieving. It would also become easier to control irrigation and 
drainage besides reducing the number of disputes over water. That 
apart, pest control etc. would become easier as the farmers would 
have compact areas for cultivation. This Court observed that such 
advantages resulting from consolidation of holdings are intended to 
encourage the development of agriculture leading to more production 
of foodgrains, so essential for the community.
18.	 Making a comparison of the 1953 Act with the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951), 
a Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mool Chandra Vs. 
Deputy Director of Consolidation,2 observed that U.P. Act No. 1 of 
1951 was enacted to provide for abolition of the zamindari system 
involving intermediaries between the tillers of the soil and the State 
and for acquisition of the right, title and interest over the land by the 
tillers and also to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent 
upon such abolition and acquisition. On the other hand, the primary 
object of the 1953 Act is consolidation of agricultural holdings for the 
development of agriculture. It was in this backdrop that Allahabad 
High Court observed that the 1953 Act has only a limited role to play 
and that is only with regard to consolidation of agricultural holdings 
to facilitate better quality of agriculture. Thus, the 1953 Act does not 
1	
[1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928 : AIR 1959 SC 564
2	
2007 SCC OnLine All 2196
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1871
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
deal with the grant of substantive rights to the tenure-holders. While 
substantive rights are governed by the provisions contained in U.P. 
Act No. 1 of 1951, the 1953 Act is only procedural with regard to 
consolidation of holdings.
19.	 Section 3 of the 1953 Act contains the definitions of various words 
and expressions used in the said Act. As per Section 3(1A), chak 
means the parcel of land allotted to a tenure-holder on consolidation. 
Consolidation has been defined in Section 3(2) to mean re-
arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure-holders 
in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. 
Section 3(2A) defines consolidation area to mean the area in respect 
of which notification under Section 4 has been issued. Section 3(4C) 
defines holding to mean a parcel or parcels of land held under one 
tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. 
Land has been defined in Section 3(5) to mean land held or occupied 
for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal 
husbandry, including pisciculture and poultry farming. Rectangulation 
as defined in Section 3(8A) means the process of dividing the area 
of a unit into rectangles and parts of rectangles of convenient size 
with a view to regulating the allotment of chaks during consolidation. 
Tenure-holder has been defined in Section 3(11) to mean a bhumidhar 
either with
transferrable rights or with non-transferrable rights. Unit 
has been defined in Section 3(11A) to mean a village or part thereof 
or two or more villages or parts thereof for which a single scheme 
of consolidation is to be framed.
19.1.	 Section 4 deals with declaration and notification regarding 
consolidation. As per sub-Section 1(a), the State Government, 
where it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought 
under consolidation operations, may make a declaration to that 
effect to be published in the official gazette whereupon it shall 
be lawful for any empowered officer or authority to enter upon 
the declared land and carry out survey etc. Thus, consolidation 
proceedings start in a district or part thereof with the issuance 
of notification under Section 4 which besides being published 
in the official gazette is also to be published as a public notice 
at convenient places of the district or part thereof.
19.2.	 The consequences which would ensue following publication of 
notification under Section 4 are enumerated in Section 5(2).
1872
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Amongst the various consequences, it is important to note that 
once a declaration is notified, every proceeding for correction of 
records and every suit or proceedings in respect of declaration 
of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration 
or adjudication of any other right at any stage of the proceedings 
would stand abated. Ofcourse, such abatement would have to 
be preceded by notice and hearing. That apart, such abatement 
would be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected 
to agitate the rights or interest in dispute in the said suits or 
proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities 
under and in accordance with the 1953 Act.
19.3.	 While Section 7 deals with revision of village map, Section 8 
speaks about revision of the field book etc upon such revision 
of village map. Section 8A provides for preparation of statement 
of principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation 
operations. Section 9 on the other hand provides for issue 
of extracts from records and statements and publications 
of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8A and the issue of 
notices for inviting objections under sub-section (1) thereof. 
Sub-section (2) empowers the noticee to file objections within 
the prescribed period disputing the correctness or nature of the 
entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom or 
in the statement of principles or the need for
partition. Section 
9A deals with disposal of cases relating to claims to land and 
partition of joint holdings. Section 9B provides for disposal of 
objections on the basis of the statement of principles.
19.4.	 Any party to a proceeding under Section 9 and who is 
aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or 
the Consolidation Officer, as the case may be, may prefer an 
appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, within the 
period prescribed under Section 11. The appellate authority after 
providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties shall pass 
appropriate order in appeal which shall be final. Sub-Section (2) 
of Section 11 makes a declaration that the Settlement Officer, 
Consolidation, hearing an appeal under sub-Section (1) shall 
be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction.
19.5.	 While the appellate order is final, the Director of Consolidation 
has been conferred the power of revision and reference under
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1873
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
Section 48. He can exercise the powers under Section 48 
either on a reference or suo moto. The said power is to be 
exercised by the Director of Consolidation to satisfy himself as 
to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, 
legality or propriety of any order (other than an interlocutory 
order) passed by the subordinate authorities.
20.	 This is broadly the scheme of the Act. 
21.	 Before we analyse the impugned judgment and order of the High 
Court, it will be useful to have the pedigree of the parties in the form 
of a chart which is as under:
Satai
Allah Bux
Mohammad
Abdul Ghafoor
Shakoor
Mohd. Ismail
Sami Ullah
Badlu
Zahoor
22.	 As can be seen from the chart above, the dispute is between the 
legal heirs of Shakoor i.e. the appellants and the legal heirs of 
Ghafoor i.e. the respondents. High Court has duly considered the 
claim of the appellants as well as of the respondents and has taken 
the view that in so far claim of the appellants to plot Nos. 35, 57, 
111 and 112 of Khata No. 99 and plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 are 
concerned, Zahoor Ahmed himself had relinquished those lands in 
favour of the respondents. Relinquishment deed is a registered one 
and was never questioned by Zahoor Ahmed during his lifetime. In 
that view of the matter, the High Court concurred with the finding 
recorded by the revisional authority and rightly dismissed Civil Misc. 
Writ
Petition No. 6635 of 1974 filed by the appellants.
23.	 In so far Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 is concerned, the same was 
filed by the respondents, being aggrieved by the declaration made 
by the consolidation authorities that appellant would get half (1/2) 
share in the plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 excluding
1874
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged to the 
respondents. High Court took the view that consolidation authorities 
had erroneously proceeded to allot half (1/2) share to Zahoor Ahmed 
on the premise that the land was a joint family property. High Court 
held that the authorities were not justified in importing principles 
of Hindu law while determining the share of the parties who were 
admittedly Mohammedans. Thus, the High Court held as follows: 
I have given careful consideration to the three orders of the 
authorities. I also perused copy of the lease deed dated 
07.05.1922. A bare perusal of the said lease deed dated 
07.05.1922 clearly shows that the said lease deed was 
taken by two persons, namely, Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah 
Bux, and Mohammad, son of Satai. Abdul Shakoor, father of 
Zahoor Ahmed (Objector) was very much alive in the year 
1922. He, according to the finding of the Deputy Director of 
Consolidation, died some time in the year 1930. It shows 
that the lease was taken jointly by Abdul Ghafoor, son of 
Allah Bux, and Mohammad, son of Satai. The said lease 
was not taken as joint family property by these persons. 
The concept of joint family property which is prevalent 
amongst the Hindus is not known amongst the Muslims. 
Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah Bux, and Mohammad, son 
of Satai, were the only lessees and no other person. The 
authorities below misdirected themselves by
considering 
the said acquisition of the property by Abdul Ghafoor and 
Mohammad as joint acquisition for the family. 
So far as the validity of the lease in question is concerned, 
the same cannot be disputed by the contesting respondents 
Nos. 4 to 7 (petitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974). 
It is not their case that the property was acquired by Abdul 
Ghafoor and Mohammad in any other manner. It is also not 
their case nor established by them that the said property 
was acquired by Satai, the common ancestor, or by Abdul 
Ghafoor, father of Zahoor Ahmad, in any other manner. 
Source of acquisition of the said property is the lease deed 
in question dated 07.05.1922. In the revenue records in the 
basic year, names of Sami Ullah and Badlu (respondents 
Nos. 4 and 5) of the connected writ petition and of Zahoor 
Ahmad are recorded. Only dispute is with regard to the 
extent of their respective shares therein. The authorities
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1875
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
below have proceeded to allot 1/2 share to Zahoor Ahemed 
on the basis that it was a joint property of the family. The 
said approach, in my considered opinion, is not legally 
tenable. The lease in question was acted upon and was 
accepted as is evident from the extract of khatauni (record 
of rights) of the third settlement, Annexure-2 to writ petition 
No. 18 of 1975. The Deputy Director of Consolidation 
was not justified in importing principles of Hindu law while 
determining the shares of the parties. In a nut shell, the 
petitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974 will get 1/12 
share in the land comprised in the said lease deed and 
not 1/2 as was wrongly held by consolidation authorities. 
In view of the above discussions, it is held that the 
petitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974 have 1/12 
share jointly in the plots comprised in khata Nos. 98 
and 99 excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which 
exclusively belongs to Sami Ullah and his brother Badlu, 
sons of Abdul Ghafoor.
24.	 We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the High 
Court. The decision rendered by the High Court is on a bundle of 
facts agitated and counter agitated by both the parties. It is a factual 
determination by the High Court based on the evidence on record. 
We do not find any perversity in the approach of the High Court or 
any error apparent on the face of record to warrant
further scrutiny 
by this Court.
25.	 That being the position, we are of the view that there is no merit 
in the two civil appeals which are accordingly dismissed. However, 
there shall be no order as to costs.
26.	 In view of the judgment passed in C.A. Nos. 9739-9740/2011, the 
Contempt Petition stands closed.
Result of the case: Civil Appeals dismissed.  
Contempt Petition closed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey