RAM DABAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bajrangi Misra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 5/1 to 5/4.

(2.) THE dispute relates to plot Nos. 169 and 170 of the Khata No. 22Aa and also plot No. 63 of Khata No. 22Ba of village Noorpur Mahul, Tehsil Phulpur, district Azamgarh. Certain relevant facts pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners is that disputed plots belonged to one Ahmad Hassan and Achhaibar. Ahmad Hassan was a tenant of the sir, who is said to have migrated to Pakistan. Consequent to his migration, his property was declared as evacuee property. One Moinuddin purchased plots from the custodian under the sale certificate dated 23.2.1960, which is brought on record alongwith supplementary rejoinder-affidavit. Subsequently, Moinuddin aforesaid executed a sale deed of plot Nos. 169 and 170 in favour of Mahboob respondent No. 5 vide sale deed dated 9.4.1962 and also transferred plot No. 63 in favour of his wife Smt. Habisulnisha respondent No. 4 by means of the sale deed dated 31.8.1971. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they were not aware about the revenue entries on the basis of sale deed, they continued in undisturbed possession all through. Another fact pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners is that Moinuddin instituted a Suit No. 990 of 1961 under Sections 229B and 209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against father of the petitioners Achhaibar claiming bhoomidhari rights of plot Nos. 96, 352Aa, 352Ba as well as plot Nos. 169, 170 and 63, which are plots in dispute. THE pleadings in the aforesaid suit was to the effect that after migration of Ahmad Hassan, sir land became bhoomidhari after enforcement of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1950. THE plaintiff Moinuddin also claimed to be bhoomidhar on the basis of sale certificate issued by the custodian in his favour. This suit was decided in terms of compromise. Claim of Moinuddin was upheld in respect of plot Nos. 96, 352Aa and 352Ba meaning thereby the compromise was not in respect of disputed plot.

(3.) SECOND submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the alleged sale certificate executed by the custodian cannot be given any weight-age for want of previous approval of Custodian General under the proviso of Section 10 (2) (o) of Evacuee Property Act. Besides, there is no reference that the said sale deed was registered under Indian Registration Act or was granted any exemption from Registration. In the circumstances, no right or title could pass in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for want of registration and the said sale deed could not be acted upon as it was a document, which was void and ab initio. No objection could be raised by the petitioners before the S.O.C. regarding rights of custodian on both Courts, either the property being evacuee property or possession of the said property on the advent of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, since the Consolidation Officer allowed objections of the petitioners and appeal was preferred by the contesting respondents. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Chunni Lal and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1970 AWR 191 ; Sardhana Cooperative Farming Society v. Custodian General, Evacuee Property Mussoorie, U. P. and others.