CHANDA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. Narsingh Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No.12.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that family pedigree in order to appreciate the controversy, will be relevant which is an under:

(3.) The dispute pertains to old khata No.137 consisting of 16 plots total area 5 bigha, 1 biswa and 8 dhoor. Smt. Lakhpata was Zamidar/ proprietor of the land in dispute. Smt. Lakhpata transferred her entire right by registered sale deed dtd. 2/12/1918 in favour of Sri Ganpat Dube. It is also material that Smt.Lakhpata was Sir holder of the land in dispute. Smt. Lakhpata became ex-proprietary tenant by virtue of provisions contained under Sec. 10 of North Western Provinces Tenancy Act 1901 due to transfer made by Smt. Lakhpata to Sri Ganpat Dube, Smt. Lakhpata was not heard of from 1348 Fasli accordingly, Sri Ganpat Dube being Jamindar took entire property in his possession. By Virtue of Provisions contained under Sec. 18 of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act, Sri Ganpat Dube became bhumidhar of the land in dispute after date of vesting. After death of Sri Ganpat Dube, his two widows namely Smt. Sharda and Smt. Parmeshwara succeeded to the property and their names were accordingly mutated in the revenue record. Smt. Parmeshwara had no issue therefore, her share was succeeded by Smt. Shobha. Smt. Rajpati Devi daughter of Smt. Shobha executed a will deed in favour of Chanda Devi, who is petitioner before this Court. Under the order of Amaldaramad dtd. 30/10/1970 passed by Supervisor/ Kannongo, name of Lalta, Rampadarth and Ramsukh sons of Kanahaiya were ordered to be mutated as heirs of Smt. Lakhpata. Since the succession was disputed as Supervisor/ Kannungo did not have jurisdiction to record the name of Lalta, Rampadarth and Ramsukh under Sec. 33-A of U.P.Land Revenue Act on the basis of P.A.-11 accordingly, Smt. Rajpati filed a suit being suit No.425 under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L. R. Act claiming declaration for her right and title in respect to the plot in dispute stating that the order of Amaldaramad dtd. 30/10/1970 is out come of fraud. During the pedency of the aforesaid suit, the village was brought under consolidation operation under Sec. 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act as such suit stood abated on 28/5/1979 in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act. In the Basic Year of Consolidation operation Lalta, Rampadarth and Ramsukh sons of Kanahaiya were recorded over the plots of khata No.137 New khata No.105. Against basic year entry Smt. Rajpati filed objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming exclusive right in the pots of Khata No.105 stating that she herself is cultivating two plots and remaining 14 plots has been given on Batai cultivation. The Consolidation Officer heard the aforementioned title objection filed by Smt. Rajpti and vide order dtd. 19/2/1982 decided the objection against Smt. Rajpati for 14 plots and decided in her favour for two plots which were in her personal cultivation. Against the order of Consolidation officer dtd. 19/2/1982 Smt. Rajpati filed appeal under Sec. 11 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 16/8/1982 along with prayer for condonation of delay supported with affidavit of appellant. Sri Janaki and Sri Jagai also filed their separate appeals against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 19/2/1982. All the three appeals were consolidated and heard together. The appellate court vide order dtd. 18/3/1983 allowed all three appeals setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer. Against the appellate order dtd. 18/3/1983, Rampadarth and others filed three separate revisions being revision Nos734, 733 and 732 under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. All the three revisions were consolidated and heard together. The aforesaid revisions were allowed and matter was remanded to the appellate Court to decide the appeals afresh vide order dtd. 22/10/1984. In pursuance of the remand order dtd. 22/10/1984 appeals filed by Janki, Jagai and Rajpathi were renumbered as Appeal Nos.4, 6 and 5 respectively. All the three appeals were heard together and appellate court vide order dtd. 31/5/2004 decided the appeal whereby appeal No.4 filed by Janki, appeal No.5 filed by Smt. Rajpati were allowed and appeal No.6 filed by Jagai was dismissed. The appellate court while deciding the appeal vide order dtd. 31/5/2004 has taken into consideration the evidence on record as well as provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, 1950 and accepted the claim of the petitioner on the basis of provisions contained under the Act and rules framed thereunder. Against the order dtd. 31/5/2004 two revisions under 48 of U.P.C.H. Act were filed by Ram Shanker and others, who were consolidated and heard together. Revisional court vide order dtd. 16/3/2005 dismissed the revisions, hence Ram Shankar and others challenged the order of appellate court dtd. 31/5/2004 and revisional court dtd. 16/3/2005 through Writ-B No.44157 of 2005 before this Court which was allowed vide order dtd. 1/10/2010 quashing the orders dtd. 31/5/2004 and 16/3/2005 and remanded the matter before appellate Court to examine the delay condonation matter, possession of the parties and the revenue entry. In pursuance of the order of this Court dtd. 1/10/2010 Settlement Officer Consolidation has restored all the three appeals and after hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed all the three appeals filed by petitioner's predecessor in interest, Janki and Jagai on the ground of limitation vide order dtd. 4/6/2016. Petitioner filed recall application against the appellate order dtd. 4/6/2016 which was dismissed vide order dtd. 7/10/2016 accordingly petitioner filed two Separate revisions under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dtd. 4/6/2016 and 7/10/2016. One Jaglal has also filed his separate revision against the appellate order dtd. 4/6/2016. All the three revisions were consolidated and heard together. Revisional Court vide order dtd. 8/9/2021 dismissed all the three revisions hence this writ petition.