Shri Jagdamba Prasad v. Kripa Shankar

2. The appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer for the deletion of the name of one Bhukhali (father of the respondents) since the appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously mentioned in the revenue records pertaining to Khata no. 63 of Village Badhaiya, Pargana Kewai. The plot Nos. 552, 570 and 574 in the present case, are registered in the names of the landowners Mahadev, Shambhu Nath and Bhukhali respectively. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath belong to the same family whereas Bhukhali was the resident of another village.

3. Objections were initially filed by the appellants whose father was 1/3rd share holder of the land which Page 3 was recorded in the name of Bhukhali-the father of the respondents. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath, the other share holders of the land conceded to the rights of the appellants. Rajpati- the son of Bhukhali, was also made a party to the proceedings but neither he filed any objection nor he claimed his rights over the land in question before the Consolidation Officer.

4. Objections were however, filed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 who are the son and daughter of Bhukhali and are his legal heirs who are the beneficiaries of the ‘Will’ executed by Bhukhali in their favour. However, the said ‘Will’ was never produced by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 at any stage before the authorities/court.

5. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.7.1971 accepted the objections of the appellants and deleted the name of Bhukhali from the revenue records by declaring that the entry of his name in the records was forged since Respondent nos. 1 and 2 Page 4 failed to produce the alleged ‘Will’ executed by Bhukhali in their favour. The respondents failed to produce any other document to prove their title on the land in question.

6. Aggrieved by the Order of the Consolidation Officer, Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer. The same was dismissed vide Order dated 28.1.1972. Rajpati, son of Bhukhali, who was made party to the proceedings, also filed a belated appeal after about one year of passing of the Order dated 13.7.1971 on the ground that he had no knowledge about the said Order. The said appeal of Rajpati was dismissed by a separate Order dated 11.12.1972.

7. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 thereafter, filed a Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad against the Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 28.1.1972. However, the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 Page 5 produced certified copies of documents executed in 1934 pertaining to auction sale of the land in question before the Revisional Court. The auction sale is in favour of Bhukhali which shows that the share of the appellants’ father was purchased by Bhukhali in the year 1934. The Revisional Authority, by placing reliance on this document of auction sale, vide order dated 30.4.1974 reversed the Order of the Consolidation Officer and allowed the revision petition of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 stating that the entering of Bhukhali’s name in revenue records of the land in question had been registered as a co-owner even after the abolition of zamindari. Therefore, through this Order, the Court upheld the claim of the respondents that Bhukhali had purchased the share of appellants’ father in an auction sale. However, the appeal of Rajpati was dismissed by the Revisional Authority on the ground that he had not preferred any objections before the Consolidation Page 6 Officer claiming his title as a legal heir of Bhukhali over the land in question.

8. Even at this stage, no Will or other documents were produced by Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to substantiate their plea that Bhukhali had given the land in question to them through Will or otherwise.

9. The appellants, being aggrieved by the Order of the Revisional Authority dated 30.4.1974, filed a Writ Petition No. 4688 of 1974 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the ground that the Revisional Authority could not have accepted the secondary evidence at the stage of revision and reversed the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority.

10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants on the ground that the appellants have not been able to prove the ownership and title over the land on expunction of the name of Bhukhali from the revenue Page 7 records. The learned Single Judge further observed that the rights of Bhukhali in respect of the land in question cannot be negatived on the basis of the documents pertaining to Auction Sale of 1934 produced by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Revisional Authority in favour of Bhukhali. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that Rajpati, the son of Bhukhali is still alive and even if the Will on the basis of which Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are claiming their right is not accepted, the rights of Bhukhali, which accrued to him on the basis of the auction sale, have to pass on Rajpati who is the natural legal heir and in no case, rights of Bhukhali can pass on to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

11. It is contended by Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Revisional Authority failed to take into consideration that the appellants were in continuous possession over the land in question even prior to 1934. It is further Page 8 contended that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ‘The Act’) in entertaining additional documents for the first time without any explanation as to why these documents were not produced by them earlier in the proceedings. Further, the certified copies produced by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are only secondary evidence and have to be proved before they could be considered by the Revisional Authority, particularly, when the concerned documents were not produced before the Original and Appellate Authorities.

12. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the Revisional Authority rightly placed reliance upon the document of auction sale and came to the conclusion that the title of the land vests on Bhukhali and therefore the same are conferred upon his legal representatives. Hence, the finding of fact recorded by the Revisional Page 9 Authority has been rightly concurred by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

13. Based on the rival factual and legal contentions raised by the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration:

1. Whether the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in entertaining additional document at revision stage?

2. Whether the High Court was correct in concurring with the findings of the Revisional Authority?

3. What order the appellants are entitled to? Answer to Point No. 1