RANI JAI RATAN KAUR Vs. D. D. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Arpan Shrivastav, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Shri Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that village Patka Bogha, Pargana, Khairagarh, District Allahabad came under consolidation operation by way of notification issued under Sec. 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in the year 1971. According to petitioner No. 1 a patta was executed by Raja Sahab in favour of petitioner No. 1 in 1929 for maintenance as petitioner No. 1 was living separately from her husband and petitioner No. 1 being disable to do cultivation sublet the land to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the Basic Year of Consolidation Operation, petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar of the plots of Khata No. 3 situated in aforementioned village as mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition and respondent No. 3 was recorded in class-7 as Asami. During consolidation partal, Plot Nos. 110/3 and 240/2, one Deotadin claimed to be in possession of the plot in dispute. Plots of Khata No. 3/1 was recorded in the name of respondent No. 3-Sampat in Class-7 as Asami. Plot of Khata No. 1 as mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition was recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1, Rani Jai Ratan Kaur as bhumidhar and respondent No. 3-Sampat was recorded in Class-7 as Asami. Plot of Khata No. 3 were also recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur and respondent No. 3-Sampat was recorded in Class-7 as asami. One plot No. 73/3 area 3 biswa 10 biswansi of khata No. 3 was recorded in Class-9 category in the name of respondent No. 3-Sampat. Plots of Khata No. 8 were recorded in the name of Shri Sant Bux Singh as Bhumidhar. The disputed plots which were recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur was stated to be transferred later on in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Against Basic Year Entry an objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No. 3/Sampat for expunging the entry of class-7 and for recording his name as sirdar. Respondent No. 3 contested his claim on the ground that he was recorded in 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli, as such, he became Adhivasi and later on Sirdar. It was also pleaded by opposite party No. 3 that Petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of Raja Bhagwati Prasad Singh, is not a disabled person and the entry of Class-7 as Asami in respect to respondent No. 3 is incorrect and is liable to be expunged. On behalf of petitioner No. 1. the claim was set up that petitioner No. 1 is a disabled person in view of adjudication took place by a competent court, as such the judgment passed by competent court declaring petitioner No. 1 is a disabled person will operate as res judicata between the parties. It was further pleaded on behalf of petitioners that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 obtained a disputed land by exchanged from petitioner No. 1. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 23/3/1972 rejected the objection filed by contesting respondents and ordered to record their name as Asami as well as the name of Ramhit was ordered to be expunged from Plot No. 73/3, area 3 biswa, 10 biswansi and the name of Deotadin was also ordered to be expunged from Plot No. 110/3, area 2 biswa and Plot No. 240/2 area 10 biswa. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 23/3/1972 by way of four appeals under Sec. 11 of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation which were registered as Appeal Nos. 86 to 89. The aforementioned appeals were consolidated and decided by common judgment dtd. 3/7/1972 dismissing the aforementioned appeals. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed four revisions under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation which were registered as revision Nos. 47/3, 48/35, 49/36, and 50/37. The aforementioned revisions were consolidated and heard together. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dtd. 7/7/1973 allowed the aforementioned revisions setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and remanded the matter back before Consolidation Officer for considering the questions of estoppel etc. In pursuance of the remand order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dtd. 7/7/1973, the Consolidation Officer heard the matter and rejected the objection of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide order dtd. 15/10/1974. In appeal filed under Sec. 11 of U.P.C.H. Act by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 15/10/1974 the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 25/3/1975 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 15/10/1974. Revision filed by petitioners under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the appellate order dtd. 25/3/1975 was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 9/8/1978. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dtd. 9/8/1978 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dtd. 25/3/1975 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

(3.) In respect to proceedings under Ss. 240-G and 240-H of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) brief facts of the case are that in Suit No. 191 of 1957-58 under Ss. 240-G and 240-H of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act an objection was filed by petitioner No. 1 on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 157 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act she should be declared disabled and separated wife and the claim of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for Adhivasi/ Sirdari rights is not tenable as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are Asami and petitioner No. 1 is Bhumidhar of plot in question. The Compensation Officer framed issues and referred the matter to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Meja, Allahabad who was competent to decide the issue of title. The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer vide judgment dtd. 13/8/1958 decided the matter in a judicial proceeding considering the objection of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 holding that the claim of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for Adhivasi/ Sirdari right is rejected and the claim of petitioner No. 1 is accepted. One suit under Sec. 202 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was also filed against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 which was abated under Sec. 5 of U.P.C.H. Act.