RAM MANORATH Vs. SURYA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Application has been filed to review my judgment dated 8.12.2004 on the ground that no permission of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was necessary to execute sale deed in respect of a land which was already excluded from the consolidation scheme at the initial sage of consolidation as is clear from Exhibit 27-C and further that the execution of a sale deed of entire share of a co-tenureholder in a land not in the consolidation scheme did not hit by Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the date of execution of sale deed and could not be declared invalid under Section 45(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Opp. Parties were directed to file counter affidavit. After exchange of Pleadings between the parties, parties were also heard on the Review Application.

(2.) The dispute in the present case relates to Plot no.386 (re-numbered as Plot no.348 in the consolidation proceedings). The land was used as Abadi and was declared Chakout (out of consolidation scheme) after the preliminary survey at the initial stage of consolidation proceeding as mentioned in C.H. Form-18, that is, out of consolidation scheme. Out of four brothers, who were cotenureholders of the land in dispute, one brother, Indrapal, executed a sale deed of entire 1/4th share in favour of Defendant-appellants. Remaining brothers instituted suit for permanent injunction against Defendant-appellants on the pleading, interalia, that they are in possession of the land in dispute and Defendants are going to make constructions on land in suit and illegally constructed one Kothari. Defendants filed their written statement denying the allegation of making any construction and pleaded that Defendant no.2 Indrapal was co-tenureholders to the extent of 1/4th share, who executed a sale deed of his entire 1/4th share in favour of Defendants and Defendants are in possession of the land in suit accordingly, Consolidation Officer in Case No. 1171/699, mutated Defendants' names and they are also in possession of a constructed house, Defendant no.2, Indrapal, also filed a written statement supporting Defendants and admitting execution of a sale deed of his entire 1/4th share in favour of Defendants-appellants whose names were recorded as co-tenureholder alongwith plaintiffs, land in dispute was Chakout and execution of sale deed did not require any permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

(3.) The Trial court decreed the suit on the ground that no permission from Settlement Officer, Consolidation was required for execution of sale deed of the land in suit for entire 1/4th share of Indrapal through the sale deed and the same is not affected by consequences of Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act wit a further finding that Defendants have constructed their houses and are in actual possession on the entire land transferred through the sale deed dated 29th January, 1972.