# Bekaru v. Shri Shiv Murat and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 132
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-03-18
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bekaru-v-shri-shiv-murat-and-others-39809
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

2All] Bekaru V. Shri Shiv Murat and others

132
13. Perusal of the impugned order
dated 18th March 1998 (Annexure-2 to the
Writ Petition) does not refer to any
'Particular
document'
or
'Act'
in
connection with the appointment the
petitioner, which have been alleged to be
fabricated or forged. Even if the First
Information Report was lodged, the
petitioner could not be thrown out of job
unless he was made to face disciplinary
enquiry as may be contemplated under
law and finally after opportunity being
afforded his services terminated. Asking a
Government employee not to discharge
his duty and throw him on the street, in
not warranted under law.

14. In view of the above, the
impugned orders dated 24.03.1998 and
18.03.1998 (Annexure-1 and 2 to the Writ
Petition) cannot be sustained and liable to
be quashed.

15. Consequently, the aforesaid
impugned orders are hereby quashed and
directions are issued to the respondents to
allow the petitioners to join duties on his
post, pay future salary month by month in
accordance with law alongwith other staff
and arrears of salary as may be found due
to him, within two months.

16. It is made clear that this
judgement
does
not
preclude
the
respondents from taking suitable action,
in
accordance
with
law
and
hold
disciplinary
enquiry
as
may
be
permissible and warranted in the facts of
the case.

17. Writ Petition stands allowed
subject to direction and observation made
above.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

6HFRQG $SSHDO 1R RI

%HNDUX
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6KUL 6KLY 0XUDW RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL -RNKDQ 3UDVDG
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 93 0DWKXU
6KUL 51 7ULSDWKL
6KUL 0DUNDQGH\ 5DL

83 &RQVROLGDWLRQ RI +ROGLQJV $FW 66
 DQG UHDG ZLWK &RQWUDFW $FW 9RLG
DQG 9RLGDEOH &RQWUDFWV $EDWHPHQW RI
VXLW DQG DSSHDO 6XLW IRU FDQFHOODWLRQ RI
YRLG VDOH GHHG $SSHDO 6HFRQG $SSHDO
1RWLILFDWLRQ XQGHU 6 LVVXHG GXULQJ WKH
SHQGHQF\
RI
DSSHDO

$SSHDO
KHOG
DEDWHV
+HOG 3DUD DQG
$ GLVWLQFWLRQ FDQ EH PDGH EHWZHHQ FDVHV
ZKHUH D GRFXPHQWV LV ZKROO\ RU SDUWLDOO\
LQYDOLG VR WKDW LW FDQ EH GLVUHJDUGHG E\
DQ\ FRXUW RU DXWKRULW\ DQG RQH ZKHUH LW
KDV WR EH DFWXDOO\ VHW DVLGH EHIRUH LW FDQ
FHDVH WR KDYH OHJDO HIIHFW $Q DOLHQDWLRQ
PDGH LQ H[FHVV RI SRZHU WR WUDQVIHU
ZRXOG EH WR WKH H[WHQW RI WKH H[FHVV RI
SRZHU LQYDOLG $Q DGMXGLFDWLRQ RQ WKH
HIIHFW RI VXFK D SXUSRUWHG DOLHQDWLRQ
ZRXOG
EH
QHFHVVDULO\
LPSOLHG
LQ
WKH
GHFLVLRQ RI D GLVSXWH LQYROYLQJ FRQIOLFWLQJ
FODLPV WR ULJKW RU LQWHUHVWV LQ ODQG ZKLFK
DUH WKH VXEMHFW PDWWHU RI FRQVROLGDWLRQ
SURFHHGLQJV
&DVH /DZ
 6&&
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

133
By the Court

1. The respondent of the appeal has
moved an application for abatement of the
appeal under Section 5 (2) of U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
(Hereinafter called the Act) mainly on the
ground that during pendency of the appeal
notification under Section 4 of the Act has
been issued and by virtue of Section 5 (2)
of the said Act, the appeal stands abated.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the pleadings of the
parties and judgement of the Courts
below.

3. It is not disputed that notification
under Section 4 of the Act has been issued
in respect of the village in which land in
suit is situate. The respondent has also
filed the photocopy of the gazette
notification dated 16.2.1991.

4. The suit out of which this Second
Appeal arose was filed for cancellation of
sale deed dated 9.9.1979. The case of the
plaintiff was that the plot in suit originally
belonged to Tamma @ Tamai. Smt
Balraji was wife of Tamma @ Tamai.
Tamma had no issue and therefore he had
adopted plaintiff Bekaru. After the death
of Tamma @ Tamai, the plaintiff
inherited his property as his heirs. The
defendant wrongly obtained sale deed of
the land in suit from Smt. Balraji widow
and Tamma @ Tamai, who had no right
to execute sale deed.

5. It is not disputed that cancellation
of sale deed was sought on the basis that
Smt. Balraji executor of the sale deed had
no authority to execute the sale deed.
Therefore, according to the plaintiff the
sale deed was void. Thus, the suit was
filed for cancellation of void deed. IT was
held by Apex Court in the Case of Gorakh
Nath Dube vs. Hari Narain Singh and
others, (1973) 2 SCC, 535 as below :-

"Questions relating to the validity of
sale deeds, gift-deeds and wills can be
gone into in proceedings before the
consolidation authorities, because such
questions naturally and necessarily arise
and have to be decided in the course of
adjudication on rights or interests in land
which
are
the
subject
matter
of
consolidation proceedings.

A distinction can be made between
cases where a document is wholly or
partially invalid so that it can be
disregarded by any court or authority and
one where it has to be actually set aside
before it can cease to have legal effect. An
alienation made in excess of power to
transfer would be to the extent of the
excess of power, invalid. An adjudication
on the effect of such a purported
alienation would be necessarily implied in
the decision of a dispute involving
conflicting claims to right or interests in
land which are the subject - matter of
consolidation proceedings. The existence
and quantum of rights claimed or denied
will
have
to
be
declared
by
the
consolidation authorities which would be
deemed to be invested with jurisdiction by
the
necessary
implication
of
their
statutory powers to adjudicate upon such
rights and interests in land, to declare
such documents effective or ineffective
but, where there is a document the legal
effect of which can only be taken away by
setting it aside or its cancellation, it could
be urged that the consolidation authorities
have no power to cancel the dead and
therefore, it must be held to be binding on
2All] New India Assurance Co. and another V. Lekhraj Singh Verma

134
them so long as it is not cancelled by a
court having the power to cancel it."

6. In this way, the Consolidation
Authorities are competent to decide right,
title and interest of the land in suit
ignoring
the
sale
deed,
which
is
admittedly void and therefore the suit
stands abated under Section 5(2) of the
Act. The application is, accordingly,
allowed and the appeal as well as suit
stands abated under Section 5 (2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

)LUVW $SSHDO )RUP 2UGHU 1R RI

1HZ ,QGLD $VVXUDQFH &R DQG DQRWKHU
«'HIHQGDQW $SSHOODQWV
9HUVXV
/HNKUDM 6LQJK 9HUPD
«&ODLPDQW 5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $. %DQHUML
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV

0RWRU 9HKLFOHV $FW 6HFWLRQ
1R IDXOW OLDELOLW\ YLV D YLV 5XOH RI VWULFW
OLDELOLW\ $ZDUG RI &RPSHQVDWLRQ HYHQ LQ
WKH DEVHQFH RI QHJOLJHQFH RQ SDUW RI
RZQHUH RU GULYHU RI WKH 9HKLFOH
+HOG 3DUD DQG

1R )DXOW /LDELOLW\
 HQYLVDJHG LQ 6HFWLRQ
 RI WKH 09 $FW LV GLVWLQJXLVKDEOH IURP
WKH 5XOH RI VWULFW OLDELOLW\ ,Q WKH IRUPHU
WKH FRPSHQVDWLRQ DPRXQW LV IL[HG DQG LV
SD\DEOH
HYHQ
LI
DQ\
RQH
RI
WKH
H[FHSWLRQV WR WKH 5XOH FDQ EH DSSOLHG ,W
LV
VWDWXWRU\
OLDELOLW\
FUHDWHG
ZLWKRXW
ZKLFK WKH FODLPDQW VKRXOG QRW JHW DQ\
DPRXQW XQGHU WKDW FRXQW
&DVH /DZ
-7 6&
 $OO (5

By the Court

1. This appeal has been directed
against the judgement and award dated
21.2.1990 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/IInd A.D.J. Meerut in
motor accident claim case no. 27 of 1988
awarding a sum of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith
interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum
on account of injury sustained by claimant
in motor accident.

2. On 18.10.1985 claimant, Ex.
Captain of military Service was coming
from Begum Bridge side on a cycle and
going towards Shastri Nagar in Merrut
City. At about 12 noon near Prayag
Nurshing Home Car No. UHO 131 owned
by appellant no. 2 and insured with
appellant no. 1 due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver dashed against the
claimant due to which he fell down on the
road and sustained injuries. He was
treated in the hospital till 14.12.1985, but
still could not be cured. His hip bone was
fractured and one of leg has shortened by
2 1/2 inches. He also took prolonged
treatment in B.H.U. and another hospital.

The claimant filed claim petition for
Rs. 3,05,000/-.

3. The Tribunal on considering the
evidence of the parties held that accident
took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the car in question and there
was no negligence on the part of the
claimant.
On
the
quantum
of
compensation the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs. 5,000/- for medicines purchased by