SHANTI DEVI Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anil Bhushan and Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate, representing the petitioner and Shri Ram Bachan Yadav, Advocate, representing respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

(2.) The facts of the case are that one Mahulli was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots. Mahulli had two sons namely Narain Yadav and Bhagwati and two daughters namely Bisun Dei and Kisun Dei. Bhagwati and Kisun Dei died issueless. Petitioner is the daughter of Bisun Dei. Sonmati was the wife of Narain Yadav. After the death of Mahulli, the plots in dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises and which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'disputed plots', devolved on Narain Yadav. Narain Yadav died issueless on 30.11.1994. The aforesaid facts are not disputed between the parties. After the death of Narain Yadav, Sonmati, i.e., the widow of Narain Yadav, was recorded as the tenure holder of the disputed plots by an order passed in 1994 under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1901') as she was the only surviving heir of Narain Yadav as provided under Section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950'). The order passed by the concerned revenue officer resulting in mutation in favour of Sonmati was not challenged by the petitioner. The aforesaid facts have been recorded in the impugned order dated 13.9.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau, District-Mau, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') and also appear to be admitted in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 1128 of 1997 in the civil court impleading Sonmati as defendant and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant in the said case from interfering in the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the disputed plots and from preventing the petitioner to cultivate the plots. In the said case, the petitioner claimed that Narain Yadav had executed a Will in her favour. Sonmati died on 15.12.2003. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who are the nephew of Sonmati claim that before her death, Sonmati had executed a Will dated 24.6.1998 bequeathing the disputed plots in their favour. On the basis of the said Will dated 24.6.1998, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 for mutation of their names in the revenue records in place of Sonmati and the said application was allowed by the concerned Tehsildar vide his order dated 12.4.2004. However, the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 could not get mutated in the revenue records as a result of the order dated 12.4.2004 because in the meantime a notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was issued, and therefore, C.H. Form 5 prepared during the consolidation operations reflected the name of Sonmati as the tenure holder of the disputed plots.

(3.) It has been stated in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition that Original Suit No. 1128 of 1997 had also been abated due to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1953. However, the said fact stated in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the photocopy of the plaint annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition shows that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have been impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the said case by some order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the concerned trial court. However, the said fact is not relevant for deciding the present writ petition, and therefore, the Court is not expressing any final opinion on the correctness of the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition. After the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1953 and because the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were not entered in the revenue records despite order dated 12.4.2004 passed in their favour under Section 34 of the Act, 1901, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') registering Case No. 1139 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953. The C.O. vide his order dated 12.5.2006 allowed the objections filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 and directed that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 be recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots in place of Sonmati. The petitioner filed a recall application on 15.6.2006 praying for recall of the order dated 12.5.2006 and also filed objections on 21.6.2006 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 praying to be recorded as the tenure holder of the disputed plots. In the recall application as well as in her objections, the petitioner again claimed that Narain Yadav had executed a Will bequeathing the disputed plots to her. In her objections, the petitioner has also disputed the Will allegedly executed by Sonmati in favour of the respondents. It was also claimed by the petitioner in her recall application that the order dated 12.5.2006 was passed without giving her any opportunity of hearing. The C.O. vide his order dated 13.10.2006 allowed the recall application dated 15.6.2006 filed by the petitioner and recalled his previous order dated 12.5.2006 on the ground of irregularity in service of summons in Case No. 1139. It has been recorded in the order dated 23.10.2006 that the order dated 12.5.2006 was passed without issuing any notice or any advertisement regarding the case. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed Appeal No. 1557 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau, District-Mau, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') against the order dated 23.10.2006, but the said appeal was dismissed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 18.9.2010. Consequently, respondent No. 4 to 6 filed Revision No. 423 of 2012-13 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which has been allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 13.9.2013. Through his order dated 13.9.2013, the D.D.C. has set aside the orders dated 23.10.2006 and 18.9.2010 passed by the C.O. and the S.O.C. The order dated 13.9.2013 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.