RAM ASRE Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's writ petition arising out of suits filed for declaration of title to the disputed land and recovery of possession under section 229-B read with section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the defendants.

(2.) RAM Achal, father of the present petitioners, filed three suits with the allegations that Smt. RAMbasi had sold the disputed plots to him through a sale deed dated 24-4-1935 and that he had become Bhumidhar of the disputed land and was in possession. It was also alleged that the father of the contesting opposite parties 6 to 9 in the present writ petition had managed to get unregistered sale deeds executed by RAMbasi though after the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but the same were ante dated. The father of the contesting opposite parties also managed to get mutation order on the basis of unregistered sale deeds in favour of the contesting opposite parties. During consolidation operation when the plaintiff filed an application for mutation of his name, he came to know of the fraud, therefore, he filed the suits for declaration of his title and in the alternative for possession. The defence in the suits was that the plaintiff's suits were barred by the provision of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and various other pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiff, as is evident from the issues framed in the judgment of the trial court dt. 16-6-1966. All the revenue courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suits due to the bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Aggrieved by their judgments, the petitioners, being heirs of the plaintiff, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition. For the sake of argument, I assumed that the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is inapplicable to the facts ana circumstances involved in the present case and at the same time I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties was that on the basis of alleged sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff should have got his name mutated over the disputed land during the consolidation operation. It is noteworthy that the sale-deed relied upon by the plaintiff was dated 24-4-1964 and de-notification under section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has taken place on 3-10-1964. There is no limitation for seeking mutation on the basis of title deed before the consolidation authorities nor there is any law to the effect that if mutation has not been sought on the basis of a transfer-deed, transferee would loose his right due to mere circumstances of not seeking mutation. In this view of the matter, I am. unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that the plaintiff failed to initiate proceeding for mutation before the consolidation authority, which could be initiated ; hence his title could be investigated by the Civil or Revenue court. Moreover in the present case I find that the plaintiff-petitioners had alleged that the father of the contesting opposite parties 6 to 9 had fraudulently obtained sale-deeds in favour of the contesting opposite-parties and got them ante-dated ; hence unless the revenue courts did not accept the contention of the plaintiff regarding fraudulent action on the part of the father of the contesting opposite-parties 6 to 9, they could not hold that the plaintiff's suits were barred by the provision of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.