# Durga Datt Ojha v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1230 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-20 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/durga-datt-ojha-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-pratapgarh-ors-43772 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Consolidation proceedings - Scope of interference - Concurrent findings - Interference permissible where authorities act without jurisdiction or contrary to statutory bar. (Paras 19-24) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 9, 11-A and 48 - Objection - Limitation - Bar. Gaon Sabha - Failure to file objection under Section 9 - Consequence - Loss of right to claim title - Consolidation authorities lacking jurisdiction to confer rights on Gaon Sabha suo motu - Bar under Section 11-A applicable even at revisional stage - Section 48 powers cannot override statutory bar. (Paras 19-21) Consolidation proceedings - Rights of third parties - Jurisdictional limits. Consolidation authorities not competent to adjudicate rights of a party who neither filed objection nor contested proceedings - Entry of Gaon Sabha's name without objection held illegal - Findings beyond scope of proceedings - Orders vitiated to that extent. (Paras 19-21) Tenure rights - Succession - Proof. Claim of inheritance - Burden of proof - Failure to establish relationship with deceased tenure holder - Rejection of claim justified - Concurrent findings affirmed. (Paras 14, 17) Sale deeds - Challenge - Fraud and forgery. Alleged sale deeds executed by illiterate deceased - Declared forged and fictitious by consolidation authorities - No right or title accrued therefrom - Findings upheld. (Paras 14-15, 17) Possession - Vesting in Gaon Sabha - Limitation. Death of tenure holder prior to consolidation notification - Possession after death - No perfection of title against Gaon Sabha - However, vesting in Gaon Sabha impermissible in absence of objection - Distinction maintained. (Paras 17, 19) Result 5 All. Durga Datt Ojha Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh & Ors. 1231 Writ petition allowed - Orders dated 25.01.1968, 27.01.1969 and 23.01.1971 set aside to the extent they direct deletion of petitioner's name and entry of Gaon Sabha - Remaining findings upheld - No order as to costs. (Paras 24-25) List of Cases cited: ## Text 1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Writ B No.- 3833 Of 1971 Durga Datt Ojha ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: C.B.Mishra, Shri Kant Counsel for the Respondents: A.N. Bhargava, D.D. Chauhan, G.P. Bhargava, M.N. Singh, S.C., V.K. Singh Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Consolidation proceedings - Scope of interference - Concurrent findings - Interference permissible where authorities act without jurisdiction or contrary to statutory bar. (Paras 19-24) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 9, 11-A and 48 - Objection - Limitation - Bar. Gaon Sabha - Failure to file objection under Section 9 - Consequence - Loss of right to claim title - Consolidation authorities lacking jurisdiction to confer rights on Gaon Sabha suo motu - Bar under Section 11-A applicable even at revisional stage - Section 48 powers cannot override statutory bar. (Paras 19-21) Consolidation proceedings - Rights of third parties - Jurisdictional limits. Consolidation authorities not competent to adjudicate rights of a party who neither filed objection nor contested proceedings - Entry of Gaon Sabha's name without objection held illegal - Findings beyond scope of proceedings - Orders vitiated to that extent. (Paras 19-21) Tenure rights - Succession - Proof. Claim of inheritance - Burden of proof - Failure to establish relationship with deceased tenure holder - Rejection of claim justified - Concurrent findings affirmed. (Paras 14, 17) Sale deeds - Challenge - Fraud and forgery. Alleged sale deeds executed by illiterate deceased - Declared forged and fictitious by consolidation authorities - No right or title accrued therefrom - Findings upheld. (Paras 14-15, 17) Possession - Vesting in Gaon Sabha - Limitation. Death of tenure holder prior to consolidation notification - Possession after death - No perfection of title against Gaon Sabha - However, vesting in Gaon Sabha impermissible in absence of objection - Distinction maintained. (Paras 17, 19) Result 5 All. Durga Datt Ojha Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh & Ors. 1231 Writ petition allowed - Orders dated 25.01.1968, 27.01.1969 and 23.01.1971 set aside to the extent they direct deletion of petitioner's name and entry of Gaon Sabha - Remaining findings upheld - No order as to costs. (Paras 24-25) List of Cases cited: 1. Salik Ram v. R.S. Rawat, Director of Consolidation & Others, 1974 RD 97 2. Gram Sabha, Kudra v. Noor Mohd. Khan, 1974 RD 350 3. Brij Lal v. State of U.P., 1976 RD 318 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Shri Kant, Advocate, for petitioner and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case has been called in revised. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has arisen from orders passed by Revenue Authorities in Consolidation proceedings. 3. The dispute relates to Khata No. 30, 31, 32 and 150. 4. Petitioner claims that he is recorded as exclusive Bhumidhar of Khata No. 32 in basic Khatauni. In respect to Khata No. 150, he is recorded in basic Khatauni as exclusive Sirdar but in respect to Khata No. 30, he is recorded as co-bhumidhar along with respondents 4 to 6 and husband of respondent 7, while in Khata No. 31, petitioner and husband of respondent 7 are recorded as co tenure holders as Bhumidhar. 5. When consolidation proceedings commenced, respondents 4 and 5 and husband of respondent 7 as also respondent 8 did not file any objection. 6. Respondent 6, however, filed an objection in respect to Khata No. 30 in which he was a co-bhumidhar with petitioner and respondents 4, 5 and husband of respondent 7. 7. Respondent 9, Surya Pratap Singh, also filed an objection under Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") alleging that he purchased Plots No. 637, 634, 639, 640, 586, 611 and 641 which comprised Khata No. 30 through sale-deed dated 07.09.1964 executed by Smt. Talashi, wife of Raghubar alias Raghunandan. 8. A third objection was filed by Ram Bali, father of respondents 11 and 12, stating that he has purchased Plot No. 750 of Khata No. 150 on 07.09.1954 from Smt. Talashi. He claimed for entry of his name in revenue record as bhumidhar. 9. A fourth objection was filed by Smt. Kailashi, respondent 10, alleging that Smt. Talashi had executed a sale-deed dated 11.09.1964 in respect to Plots No. 675, 676 and 674 of Khata No. 150. 1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 10. Petitioner opposed claim of respondent 9 and 10 on the ground that Smt. Talashi was an illiterate old lady having lost equilibrium of her brain about two months prior to her death and alleged sale-deeds are vitiated on account of fraud and undue influence. He said that Smt. Talashi died in September without leaving any issue and name of petitioner was rightly mutated in revenue record since he was son of sister of husband of Smt. Talashi. 11. In respect to Plot No. 619 of Khata No. 32, respondent 13 claimed to be Sirdar on the basis of being sub-tenant. His name was entered as sub-tenant in 1365 fasali. One Udai Baharur Singh also claimed to be Sirdar of Plot No. 590 of Khata No. 32 on the ground of sub-tenancy. Petitioner disputed claim of respondent 13 and Udai Bahadur Singh, both. 12. Co-tenure holders of Khata No. 31 and 32 did not contest the matter. They also did not deny relationship of petitioner with Smt. Talashi or her husband. 13. However, respondent 6, Deo Saran, admitted in his objection that he was in possession along with recorded co-tenure holders. 14. Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as "CO") formulated following issues: "1.सूयग प्रताप डसंह आराजी डिजाई के भूडमिर बैिामे के आिार पर है?" "1. Whether on the basis of the sale-deed, Surya Pratap Singh is Bhoomidhar of the land in question?" "2. क्ा दुगाग दि मु0 तुलसी के वाररस हैं?" "2. Whether Durga Dutt is successor of Tulsi?" "3. क्ा वासदेव आडद मु0 तुलसी के वाररस हैं?" "3. Whether Vasdev and others are successors of Tulsi?" "4. क्ा कैलाशी बैिाम ॅेॅं के आिार पर भूडमिर है?'' "4. Whether on the basis of the sale-deed, Kailashi is Bhoomidhar?" "5. क्ा डशव सागर बैिाम ॅे के आिार पर भूडमिर है?" "5. Whether on the basis of the sale-deed, Shiv Sagar is Bhoomidhar?" "6. क्ा उदय बहादुर आडद आराजी िं0 590 के शीरदार है?" "6. Whether Udai Bahadur and others are Sirdar of plot no. 590?" "6,& क्ा हवलदार आराजी िं 755 तथा 619 के शीरदार हैं?'' (वाद डबन्दु 6 की क्रम संख्या पुिरावृि अतः न्यायालय द्वारा 6ए के रूप मे ॅं अंडकत) "6A. Whether Hawaldar is Sirdar of plot no. 755 and 619?" (Sl.No. of issue 6 repeated hence marked as 6A by Court). 5 All. Durga Datt Ojha Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh & Ors. 1233 (English Translation by Court) 15. Issues 2 and 3 were taken together and it held that Durga Dutt Ojha (petitioner hereat) did not adduce any evidence to show his relationship or that he was legal heir of Smt. Talashi (mentioned in the order as Tulsi). Hence, issue 2 was answered against petitioner. Similarly issue 3 was also answered against Basudeo, husband of respondent 7. Issues 1, 4 and 5 were taken together and it was held that on the basis of alleged sale-deeds, no rights can be claimed and sale-deeds appear to be forged and fictitious 16. Similarly it was also held that Udai Bahadur has no right over Plot No. 590 hence issue 6 returned against Udai Bahadur and others. Issue 6 A was answered in favour of Havaldar Singh, respondent 13, and CO held that his possession as Asami must be accepted. It, accordingly, directed vide order dated 25.01.1968 that in Khata No. 31, name of Talashi and petitioner be deleted and in respect to aforesaid arazi, Gram Sabha's name shall be entered. 17. A large number of appeals were preferred before Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as "SOC") which came to be decided by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as "ASOC"). It dismissed all 33 appeals vide order dated 27.01.1969 but with some modification of order passed by CO and directed as under: "For the reasons indicated above all these 33 appeals have been dismissed but the order of the Court has been modified and vested the land of Khata No. 15 instead of Khata No. 16 the entries of Khata No. 156 should continue in favour of Durga Datta and name of Mst. Talashi has been expunged from Khata No. 30 and 31 in favour of her cotenants that is Khata No. 31 in favour of Ram Deo and in respect of Khata No. 30 her name has been expunged in favour of Ram Deo so far. Ram Surat and Basdeo and the land of Khata No. 32 and 150 have been vested in the S.B. and the order of the C.O. has been confirmed in respect of these 2 khatas. Amaldaramad be made accordingly. This order shall govern in these 33 appeals. Let a copy of the order be placed on each file" 18. A number of revisions then were filed by petitioner and others before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as "DDC"). All the revisions have been dismissed vide order dated 23.01.1971. Hence, this writ petition. 19. With respect to claim of petitioner, DDC has observed as under: "As regards the claim of Durgadatt I may mention that there is no reliable evidence on record to prove that he is legal heir of Smt. Talasi and thus his claim, too, has rightly been dismissed by lower courts. I further hold that the order passed by ASOC that interest of Smt. Talasi in Khatas nos. 30 and 31 has passed to her co-tenants by survivorship is also quite just and proper. As Smt. Talasi had died in 1964 and the village was notified u/s 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act in 1966, none perfected rights over the land in dispute on the basis of possession against Gaon Sabha 1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES after death of Smt. Talasi. I hold that land of Khatas nos. 32 and 150 has rightly been ordered by the courts below to be entered in the name of Gaon Sabha and I do not find any valid ground to interfere with their concurrent findings." The result is that all these revisions fail and are dismissed. Let this order be kept on the file of revision no. 2313/1283 and it shall also govern nineteen other revisions mentioned above." 20. Counsel for petitioner submitted that Gaon Sabha has neither filed any objection nor contested the matter, therefore, it is not open to Consolidation authorities to record a finding with respect to right or title of Gaon Sabha. He urged that other objectors, who claimed their rights on the basis of alleged sale-deeds executed by Smt. Talashi, which were declared forged and fictitious by consolidation authorities, brought the matter before this Court in Writ Petition (Writ-B) No. 3524 of 1971 (Sheo Sagar and others Vs. Gaon Sabha and others) and the same has already been dismissed in default vide order dated 02.05.2007. Hence claim of respondents based on various sale-deeds allegedly executed by Smt. Talashi is bound to fail. 21. I find that Consolidation authorities have held that Smt. Talashi died in 1964 and consolidation proceedings were notified in 1966, hence heirs or persons whose names were mutated had not perfected their title or right over land in dispute on the basis of possession and that land would go to Gaon Sabha. To this extent, impugned orders are illegal, inasmuch Gaon Sabha never filed any objection and never contested the matter. Therefore, direction to remove name of petitioner from relevant Khatas and to enter name of Gaon Sabha is bad in law and cannot sustain. The direction in this regard are in respect to Khata No. 32 and 150. I find submission of learned counsel for petitioner to this extent correct. 22. In Salik Ram Vs. R.S. Rawat, Director of Consolidation and others 1974 RD 97, name of Salik Ram was recorded in respect to Khata No. 10A as grove holder. In the basic year also, his name was recorded over this land. DDC held that petitioner Salik Ram or other respondents have no right in that land and it is vested in Gaon Sabha. Court held that Gaon Sabha neither filed any objection nor contested the matter, hence, it has lost any claim over disputed land and DDC has no jurisdiction to give a finding in favour of a third party, i.e. Gaon Sabha, who has lost its rights to raise objection having not been filed in time, by virtue of Section 11-A of Act, 1953. 23. A Division Bench judgment in Gram Sabha, Kudra Vs. Noor Mohd. Khan 1974 RD 350 is again a judgment reiterating the aforesaid view. It has said that no person, who has not filed an objection under Section 9 regarding claim to land, partition of joint holding and valuation of plots, threes, wells and other improvements, etc., within the period prescribed therefor, shall be permitted to raise such an objection, nor shall any such objection be heard at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings. Court said that the words "at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings" are so wide so as to cover up proceedings under Section 48 of Act, 1953. Having said so, Court further held: 5 All. Durga Datt Ojha Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh & Ors. 1235 "As a result of this bar contained in Section 11-A the Gaon Sabha which admittedly had not filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act within the prescribed time, could not be permitted to file an objection claiming right or title to these plots before the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor could the Gaon Sabha be heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on such an objection. It could not be the intention of the Legislature that the policy laid down by it under Section 11-A of the Act should be defeated by exercise of suo motu powers by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48. It will be contrary to all established canons of interpretation of statutes to accept the argument that what could not be achieved by the Gaon Sabha by a belated objection claiming title to this land before the Deputy Director of consolidation due to the bar of Section 11-A of the Act could be achieved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation through exercise of his suo motu power under Section 48. ... On the principle of harmonious construction we are of the view that the scope of power conferred by Section 48 on the Deputy Director of Consolidation to adjudicate upon the regularity, correctness or legality of an order passed by a subordinate consolidation authority must remain confined to matters between the parties before the consolidation authorities and this power cannot extend to persons who are not parties to the consolidation proceedings at any stage or to complete strangers or outsiders to these proceedings. In that view of the matter we agree with the learned Single Judge in the view that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to hold that the land in dispute had become vested in Gaon Sabha and that the name of Gaon Sabha should be substituted in place of Noor Mohd. Khan and others." 24. In Brij Lal Vs. State of U.P. 1976 RD 318, again the above exposition of law was reiterated by observing: "I, therefore, hold that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a manifest error of law in directing that the name of Gaon Sabha, opposite party No. 4 should be entered in the revenue records against the disputed plot and consequently the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated March 11, 1969 is liable to be quashed to this extent." 25. Learned Standing Counsel sought to argue that there is an amendment by addition of Section 11-C by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1974"), but I find that this provision is a subsequent insertion and not retrospective. This question has also been negatived in Brij Lal Vs. State of U.P. (supra). 26. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.01.1968, insofar as direction has been issued for deletion of name of petitioner and making entry of name of Gaon Sabha, and the appellate and revisional orders dated 27.01.1969 and 23.01.1971 respectively, to the same extent, are hereby set aside. 27. No costs. --------- 1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, A.C.J. THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ C No.- 14417 Of 2016 Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Rohan Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Ravindra Singh SUGAR - REGULATION OF SUPPLY, PURCHASE AND PAYMENT OF CANE PRICE - INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT - WAIVER Held: Under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953 and the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, the statutory scheme mandates timely payment of cane price and creates automatic liability for interest upon default. Payment of principal dues does not extinguish liability to pay interest. Mere pendency of an application seeking waiver of interest does not suspend statutory liability, as power of waiver vests exclusively in the State Government upon recommendation of the Cane Commissioner under Section 17(3). In absence of recommendation and Government order, liability subsists. (Paras 2, 14, 18-21, 28-29) STATUTORY CONTROL - SUGAR INDUSTRY - CENTRAL & STATE REGULATORY FIELDS - REPUGNANCY Held: Sugar is a controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; sugarcane is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 operate harmoniously, regulating supply, pricing, and recovery. No repugnancy arises, as there is no irreconcilable conflict between the Central delegated legislation and the State enactment. Both occupy the field complementarily. (Paras 10-13, 22-27) SUGAR - PAYMENT OF PRICE - MODE OF RECOVERY - RECOVERY AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE Held: Where default in payment occurs, Cane Commissioner may forward certificate specifying arrears of price plus interest to Collector, who is mandated to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. The procedure adopted for recovery is valid and in conformity with statutory framework. (Paras 2, 18-19) WAIVER OF INTEREST - NATURE OF POWER - LIMITS - REQUIREMENT OF RECOMMENDATION