Source: https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/ram-bodh-and-ors-vs-deputy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-october-2003
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:20:51+00:00

Document:
Posted On October 9, 2003 by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.
1. These four writ petitions arise out of same order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh hence are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. Heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, senior advocate appearing as counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6367 of 1975 ; Sri Sankatha Rai appearing as counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2752 of 1975 ; Sri R. N. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. N. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6217 of 1975 and Sri R. S. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Writ Petition No. 2847 of 1975. Above counsel representing the above noted petitioners have also addressed their submissions as respondents in writ petition in which they are arrayed as respondents.
121     Kade Deen, Paras Nath, Shitla Prasad sons of Amar Nath.
318  Shri Pal son of Mahadeo, thereafter Ram Pratap and Bhagwan Din sons of Shripal.
4. Various objections were filed under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding three Khatas. With regard to Khata No. 8 objection was filed by Ram Bodh and Basudeo claiming half share in the Khata. Objections were also filed regarding Khata No. 8 by Bhagwan Din, Ram Pratap sons of Shripal, Shanker, Ram Sundar, Vijay Nath, Ram Baran, Bhawani Pher, Beni Madhav, Sukh Narain, Sukh Nandan and Sankata Prasad claiming cotenancy right with the allegations that the Khata is ancestral. With regard to Khata No. 121 objections were also filed by Ram Bodh and Basudeo claiming half share. Other objections were filed by Bhagwan Din, Ram Pratap son of Shripal, Shanker, Vijay Nath, Ram Awadh, Ram Baran, Bhawani Pher, Beni Madhav, Ram Lagan, Sukh Narain, Sukh Nandan and Sankatha Prasad claiming cotenancy right in the Khata on the ground that it is ancestral property. With regard to Khata No. 318 which was recorded in the name of Shri Pal son of Mahadeo and thereafter in the name of his sons Bhagwan Din and Ram Pratap. Objections were filed by Shitala Prasad and Paras Nath sons of Amar Nath, Kamla Kant sons of Kade Deen praying that the name of Shripal be expunged and their names be recorded as sole Bhumidhars. Consolidation Officer after remand from the appellate court vide its order dated 18.8.1971 rejected all the objections and directed maintaining of basic year entry. Seven appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The appeal of Sukh Nandan, Ram Narain, Udit Narain and Bhagwan Deen regarding Khata No. 8 was partly allowed. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed recording of the names of Sukh Nandan, Sankatha Prasad, Bhagwan Deen and Ram Pratap son of Shripal, Roop Narain, Chandra Narain and Raj Narain sons of Sukh Narain and Udin Narain son of Ram Achraj as co-tenure tenant holders along with the recorded tenants. Rest of the claim of the appellants were rejected. Against the appellate order dated 9.1.1972 six revisions were filed being Revision No. 6965/507, Shitala Prasad v. Ram Pratap and Ors. ; Revision No. 6988/509/377, Udit Narain and Ors. v. Shitala Deen and Ors. ; Revision No. 6960/506/378, Sankatha Prasad and Ors. v. Shitla Deen and Ors. ; Revision No. 6952/510/379, Bhagwan Deen and Ors. v. Shitala Prasad and Ors. ; Revision No. 6987/535/380, Udit Narain v. Shitla Prasad and others and Revision No. 6979/524/381, Basudeo and Ors. v. Shitala Prasad and Ors. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed all the revisions by maintaining the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the consolidation authorities these four writ petitions have been filed.
“(1) Name of the father of the petitioner being recorded in both the Khatas No. 8 and 121 in third settlement, petitioners are entitled to have half share in the Khata. Further in 1356F, the name of Smt. Tejna being daughter-in-law of the petitioner’s father’s brother was recorded, petitioners are entitled to be given rights in both the Khatas.
6. Writ Petition No. 2752 of 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as the second writ petition), has been filed by Bhagwan Din and Ram Pratap sons of Sripal, Udit Narain, Roop Narain, Chandra Narain and Raj Narain sons of late Sukh Narain. The petitioners of second writ petition have claimed cotenancy right in Khata No. 121. The case of the petitioners is that land of Khata No. 121 is ancestral joint land and they are entitled for share in Khata No. 121. The finding recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation that identity of the land is not the same in third settlement, have been challenged. A family settlement dated 10.10.1957 filed before the Tehsildar in the mutation case after the death of Amar Nath has been relied by the petitioners. It is contended that the aforesaid family settlement is binding and the consolidation courts committed error in not placing reliance on the said family settlement dated 10.10.1957. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the family settlement was binding in which the land was given to the petitioners from Khata No. 121. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., (1976) 2 RD 69 and Sukhari and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and Ors., 1986 RD 274.
7. Writ Petition No. 6217 of 1975 has been filed by Shitala Prasad Tiwari, Paras Nath Tiwari sons of Amar Nath and Kamla Kant son of Kare Deen. The petitioners have challenged the order of the consolidation authorities regarding Khata No. 318 and also regarding Khata No. 8 in which co-tenancy rights have been given to some of the objectors. The petitioners claim is that Khatas No. 8 and 121 is exclusive Khata of the petitioners and none of the objectors have any right. With regard to Khata No. 318 the claim of Shripal and his sons Bhagwan Deen and Ram Pratap have been contested. The petitioners have supported the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities regarding Khata No. 121 and contended that the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities is finding of fact which needs no interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on Jagdamba Singh and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1985 ALJ 671 and Sanchi and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Ors., 1985 ALJ 977. Shri R. N. Singh assisted by Sri S. N. Singh made his submissions raising above contentions.
8. Writ Petition No. 2847 of 1975 has been filed by Sukh Nandan. The claim has been made with regard to Khata No. 121. It was contended by Sri R. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belong to the branch of Hanuman and the land being ancestral he is entitled for share. He further contended that there was no evidence that Hanuman was ejected on 24.7.1874. It was contended by Sri Misra that all descendants were in possession of plots of Khata No. 121 and there is no evidence of any fresh settlement.
9. I have considered the respective submissions raised by counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
11. Admittedly the entries in 1356F over Khata No. 8 was of Smt, Tejna and Amar Nath. Khata No. 8 having been found to be ancestral, there being no fresh settlement and Smt. Tejna having claimed right as widow before date of vesting petitioners will be entitled to succeed Smt. Tejna in accordance with the provisions of Sections 171 and 172 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, after the death of Smt. Tejna.
12. The claim of petitioners with regard to Khata No. 121 has also to be accepted in view of the fact that over Khata No. 121 in third settlement Ramanand was recorded and in 1356F Smt. Tejna along with Amar Nath was recorded. Accepting the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation that identity of the land of Khata No. 121 was changed in all the three settlements taking entries of last settlement i.e., third settlement which was Ramanand and Amar Nath over Khata No. 121 it has to be accepted that the fresh settlement was in favour of father of the petitioners and Amar Nath. Ramanand died after the third settlement and before 1356F. Smt. Tejna was recorded in 1356F. The name of Smt. Tejna was on the record as widow, since after the third settlement there is no evidence of any fresh settlement hence even if only Amar Nath and Smt. Tejna are accepted as tenants of Khata No. 121 petitioners will be entitled to succeed Smt. Tejna after her death which occurred after 1356F, when Smt. Tejna died succession will open in” accordance with the provisions of Sections 171 and 172 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the petitioners will be entitled to succeed Smt. Tejna in accordance with Section 171 (r) read with Section 172. The entries of third settlement as well as 1356 F have not been disputed by any of the parties. All the consolidation courts have not rightly considered the claim of the petitioners with regard to Khata No. 121. Petitioners Ram Bodh and Basu Deo have thus clearly made out their claim in both the Khatas Nos. 8 and 121 and their writ petition deserves to be allowed and their names be recorded as co-tenants in Khatas No. 8 and 121.
“36. Tenant in occupation at commencement of Oudh Rent (Amendment) Act, 1921, the conditions of his statutory tenancy, ……………………….Every tenant, not being a tenant with a right of occupancy or sub-tenant, shall be entitled to retain possession of the holding occupied by him at the commencement of the Oudh Rent (Amendment) Act, 1921 at the rent then payable by him, for a period of ten years from the date of the last change in his rent or of the last, alteration in the area of the holding, or, where no such change or alteration has taken place, from the date on which the tenant was admitted to the occupation of the holding.
Provided that a person who succeeds as an heir of a deceased tenant to whom Clause (e) of Sub-section (1)’ of Section 62A applies shall be entitled to retain occupation of the holding at the rent payable by the deceased only for the unexpired portion of the statutory period of the deceased tenant.
“3 (18) “Statutory tenant” means a tenant to whom Section 36 or Section 37 applies.
17. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners that all the persons belonging to branch of Goverdhan were entitled to the share since the land of Khata No. 121 was ancestral, cannot be accepted. Both Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly held that the rights of tenants were not heritable under the Oudh Rent Act. No error has been committed by the consolidation authorities in not giving right to the petitioners in Khata No. 121.
18. Now coming to the submission of Shri Sankatha Rai based on family settlement dated 10.10.1957, it is relevant to mention that the said family settlement was not entered into by all the persons who have claimed right in Khata No. 121. Admittedly Ram Bodh and Basu Deo petitioners of first writ petition were not parties to the said settlement. The name of the father of Ram Both and Basu Deo was recorded in third settlement over Khata No. 121. Family settlement unless entered into by all the persons of the family claiming right has no binding effect. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Kale and others case (supra). The Deputy Director of Consolidation has noted that the said family settlement was filed before the Tahsildar in the mutation case which was filed after the death of Amar Nath, Tahsildar himself has not accepted the family settlement and has observed that the rights cannot be determined by the Tahsildar in mutation proceedings on the basis of family settlement and the parties are free to agitate their rights before the competent court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any error in not relying on the said family settlement. Family settlement having entered into between the some parties of the branch of Hanuman, cannot be said to be binding on all the parties.
The judgment in Sukhart and others case (supra) 18 based on ratio as laid down in Kale and others case (supra). As observed above, the said family settlement having not been entered amongst all the parties of the family has no effect and it is not necessary to consider any further above submission.
19. In view of the above, the second writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
20. The third writ petition filed by Shitla Prasad Tewari, Paras Nath Tewari and Kamla Kant is for claiming exclusive right in Khata No. 8 and Khata No. 318.
21. With regard to land of Khata No. 8 finding has been recorded by all the three courts that the said Khata contains only two plots, namely, plot No. 594 (area 2.2.2) and plot No. 716 (area 4.7.15) and both the plots were groves. Findings have been recorded that the said groves are continuing from last third settlement in the family and the grove has more than hundred years old trees. The claim of the petitioners that the land exclusively belong to them, cannot be accepted. Admittedly in third settlement along with the name of the father of the petitioners the name of Ramanand from the branch of Goverdhan was also recorded. The identity of the land being continuing for more than hundred years courts below have rightly granted co-tenancy right in grove to the other members of the family. Petitioners- have failed to establish their exclusive right over the plots of Khata No. 8.
22. Coming to the land of Khata No. 318 the said Khata was recorded in the name of Sri Pal and thereafter in the name of Ram Pratap and Bhagwan Din. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation both have recorded finding that the name of Sripal came on Khata No. 318 under the orders passed by the Judicial Officer. Petitioners failed to establish their right over Khata No. 318. They have not been able to show that the land of Khata No. 318 has been recorded in the names of the petitioners. All the Courts have rightly maintained the basic year entry with regard to Khata No. 318. There is no error in the Judgment of all the three courts below regarding Khata No. 318. The Writ Petition No. 6217 of 1975 also deserves to be dismissed.
23. Fourth Writ Petition No. 2847 of 1975, Sukhnandan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., has been filed by Sukhnandan claiming rights over Khata No. 121. For the reasons given for rejecting the claim of Bhagwan Din and others in Writ Petition No. 2752 of 1975 regarding Khata No. 121 the claim of Sukhnandan for Khata No. 121 can also not be accepted. In so far as the claim of the petitioners that the members of both the branches were in possession of plots of Khata No. 121 suffice it to say that no evidence worth credence was given by the petitioners before the Courts below nor any such submission has been raised before the Courts below by the petitioners claiming right on the basis of possession. The claim of Sukhnandan with regard to Khata No. 121 also cannot be accepted and the fourth writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
24. In view of what has been said above the Writ Petition No. 6367 of 1975. Ram Bodh and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, is allowed. The orders of all the three courts refusing the claim of the petitioners regarding Khata Nos. 8 and 121 are quashed and the claim of the petitioners regarding Khata No. 8 along with the persons whose claims have already been allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, is upheld. The claim of the petitioners regarding Khata No. 121 is also allowed and their names be recorded with recorded tenure holders. The Writ Petition No. 6367 of 1975 is allowed to the above extent.
25. The Writ Petition Nos. 2752 of 1975, 6217 of 1975 and 2847 of 1975 are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.