BRAHIM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner Ibrahim prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 3rd of September, 1970, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties concerns Plot No. 326 of village Bidiyani. In the year 1953 this plot was entered in the names of Ashik Ali, Haitul, Saifullah Taluqdar and Ibrahim. Ashik Ali and others and Haitul for himself and as guardian of Ibrahim executed a sale deed on 1st of August, 1953 in favour of respondent No. 4 Mahabir Prasad for a consideration of Rupees 7, 000/-. On 24th January, 1965 an order was made directing mutation of the name of Mahavir Prasad. This order was given effect to in the Khatauni for the year 1362 F. The mother of Ibrahim as his guardian filed suit No. 752 of 1954 in the court claiming co-bhumidhari rights over the plot of Munsif Khalilabad challenging the sale in dispute till 25th of November, 1967 and deed executed by Haitul transferring the 26th December, 1967 when he filed apply the share of the minor in the property. Sub-actions before the Consolidation Officer subsequently she withdrew the suit on 29th of claiming to be its co-tenant along with Mahavir Prasad. He also filed an affidavit dated 26th of December, 1967 stating that he was a minor when the village came under May, 1967. One Asgar claiming to be mater nal uncle of Ibrahim filed suit No. 356 of 1958 as the next friend of Ibrahim in the Court of Munsif Khalilabad, claiming canconsolidation. During this period Civil cellaction of the said deed dated 3rd of proceedings were going on and that he hat August, 1953 executed in favour of Maha vir Prasad. He sought a declaration that Ibrahim was a co-bhumidhar with Mahavir Prasad. While this suit was pending petitioner Ibrahim made an application dated 6th of December, 1965 seeking permission of the become major only about four to six monthi back. Accordingly, aforesaid objection wai being filed after decision in civil suit. This affidavit, obviously was filed with a view to explain the inordinate delay in filing objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Claim court to permit him to prosecute the suit made by Ibrahim was contested by Mahavir himself as he had become major. This re- Perasantad who pleaded that the objection filed quest was allowed by the court on 23rd of Ibrahim was belated He further claim-February, 1960, on which date Ibrahim ed that even if the sale deed executed in his favour was held to be void, he had been in adverse possession over the plot in dis pute ever since the year 1963 and as such he had acquired rights over Ibrahim's share moved another application stating that his grandfather Haitul had executed a sale deed dated 1st of August, 1953 as his guardian and had realised the sale proceeds in respect of his share in the property. One Sant Lal dispute as well. Misled his mother into filing suit No. 752 of 1954, but on correct facts coming to her knowledge she withdrew the same. Again Sant Lal got the present suit filed through one Asgar which is not in his interest. As a matter of fact he was taking steps to re cover his share of sale proceeds from his uncle Zaffullah, in suit No. 8 of 1962. It was more advantageous for him to obtain his share in the sale proceeds rather than in getting the sale deed cancelled. He has become a major and does not want to fight a case with Mahabir Prasad who is willing to give up the costs of litigation. He, therefore prayed that the suit be dis missed and the parties be directed to bear application has been produced before me, it shows that the application was signed by the petitioner Ibrahim, his counsel Chet Ram Pandey and the counsel for Mahabir Prasad. In view of this application, suit No. 326 of 1958 was dismissed on 23rd of February, 1966.

(3.) IT appears that in the meantime a Notification under Section 4 of the Con solidation of Holdings Act had been issued on the 30th December, 1963 and in the basic year, the name of Mahavir Prasad was recorded on the plot in dispute. No steps were taken on behalf of Ibrahim for claiming co-bhumidhari rights over the plot in dispute till 25th of November, 1967 and 26th December, 1967 when he filed appli cations before the Consolidation Officer claiming to be its co-tenant along with Mahavir Prasad. He also filed an affidavit dated 26th of December, 1967 stating that he was a minor when the village came under consolidation. During this period Civil proceedings were going on and that he has become major only about four to six months back. Accordingly, aforesaid objection was being filed after decision in civil suit. This affidavit, obviously was filed with a view to explain the inordinate delay in filing objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Claim made by Ibrahim was contested by Mahavir Prasad who pleaded that the objection filed by Ibrahim was belated. He further claim ed that even if the sale deed executed in his favour was held to be void, he had been in adverse possession over the plot in dis pute ever since the year 1963 and as such he had acquired rights over Ibrahim's share in the plot in dispute as well.