# Gaya Prasad & Ors v. J.D.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1878
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-07
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 5686 of 1980
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gaya-prasad-ors-v-j-d-c-ors-51901
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953- In the basic year of
consolidation operation-both parties were jointly
recorded over the plot in question-Petitioners
filed objection u/s 9-A (2) of UPCH Act against
the basic year entry-impugned order decided
both the parties are entitled to be recorded over
1⁄2 shares each over the plot-fact is that the
predecessor of contesting respondent were
recorded
along
with
the
predecessor
of
Petitioners -second settlement year and the
entry continued up to the basic year of the
consolidation operation-finding of fact that both
are entitled for 1⁄2 share each is in accordance
with law.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

## Text

1878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereafter the nine other gatas were acquired
subsequently.

23. Once the identity of the holding has
completely changed, more particularly one Gata
No.123 which was originally leased in favour of
Sheo Charan Singh was not part of the
resettlement in favour of Harman Singh
alongwith new gatas, it could not be said that it
is a property of common ancestor.

24. The respondents though examined
witnesses in their favour, who had given
statements but none of the statements supported
by any documents, rather it is an undisputed
case, even on the part of the respondents that the
identity of the holdings has been changed and the
fresh resettlement was made.

25. The findings of jointness would not
lead to inference that the property is ancestral
property as it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as by this Court in catena of
decisions. In the case of Jai Narain v. D.D.C. &
others reported in (1979) RD 198, it was held
that the presumption is only in respect of
jointness and not that any property acquired by
members of the family is a joint family property
and this is a matter of evidence and not of
presumption. In the present case, the respondents
have failed to adduce any evidence that the
property is a joint family property.

26. In the case of Bodh Raj v. Joint
Director of Consolidation Faizabad and
Others, in Writ Petition No.676 of 1980
connected with Writ Petition No.23 of 1980,
decided on 22.09.1995, wherein it has been held
that there is a presumption with respect to the
jointness of family and if it is shown or proved to
the satisfaction of the Court then property
inherited from a common ancestor will be
deemed to be a joint property of all. It is also
clarified in the said judgement that joint family
funds must be used for purchase of the property
in order to make it joint and property is entered
in the name of one person then it has to be proved
by other party, who claims to be a joint property
that it was acquired by the joint family funds,
which the respondents have failed to establish.

27. As far as submission of learned counsel
for the petitioners that in other villages, the
petitioners had not objected when the names of
respondents were entered into revenue records
but only in the village of Pooremani, the
objection has been raised. It infers that where the
respondents have their lawful claim, the
respondents had not objected and where they are
not entitled to get the right of co-tenancy, it has
been objected.

28. Under these circumstances, the
appellate order and the revisiaonal order are not
sustainable and are liable to be quashed.

29. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

30. The impugned appellate order dated
3.2.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) and the revisional order dated
16.01.1982 passed by the revisional court are set
aside.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1878
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 5686 of 1980

Gaya Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
J.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
5 All. Gaya Prasad & Ors. Vs. J.D.C. & Ors.
1879
S.K. Singh, M.N. Singh, Mahesh Narain
Singh, Mahesh Narayan, V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sakeel Ahmad, M.C. Umrao, M.N. Singh, P.B.
Umrao, Piyush, R.C. Pandey, R.P. Shastri,
S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953- In the basic year of
consolidation operation-both parties were jointly
recorded over the plot in question-Petitioners
filed objection u/s 9-A (2) of UPCH Act against
the basic year entry-impugned order decided
both the parties are entitled to be recorded over
1⁄2 shares each over the plot-fact is that the
predecessor of contesting respondent were
recorded
along
with
the
predecessor
of
Petitioners -second settlement year and the
entry continued up to the basic year of the
consolidation operation-finding of fact that both
are entitled for 1⁄2 share each is in accordance
with law.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. B.
Umrao, learned counsel for respondent no.
4/3 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plots
of Khata No. 323/20-44, situated at village
Korsum, Pargana Bindki, District Fatehpur
was recorded in the basic year of the
consolidation operation in the name of both
parties (Ram Chela and Kalicharan). An
objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred as UPCH Act) has
been filed by the petitioners against the basic
year entry in respect to the plot in question
stating that Plot No. 1365, 1366 & 1390 are
sole tenancy of petitioners as such the name
of respondnet no. 4/Kalicharan be expunged
and respondent no. 4 has no share in Plot No.
1365, 1366 & 1390. It is further prayed in
the objection that in Plot No. 1327 & 1328,
petitioners have 2/3 share and respondent
no. 4 has 1/3 share. Consolidation Officer
framed issues in the aforementioned case
which have been registered as case no. 8257.
The parties lead evidence in support of their
cases. The Consolidation Officer vide order
dated 27.01.1975 decided the objection
holding that petitioners shall be recorded as
exclusive owner of Plot Nos. 1365 & 1366
and in respect to Plot Nos. 1327 & 1328,
petitioners will be entitled to 7/12 share and
respondent no. 4 shall be entitled to 5/12
share. The Consolidation Officer further
held that in remaining plots both parties will
be entitled to 1/2 share. Against the order of
Consolidation Officer dated 27.01.1975
both parties filed appeal under Section 11(1)
of the UPCH Act before the Settlement
Consolidation Officer. The appeal filed by
the petitioners was registered as Appeal No.
559 and appeal filed by the contesting
respondent no. 4 was registered as Appeal
No. 523. Both the appeals were consolidated
and heard together by Assistant Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation.
The
Assistant
Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order
dated 20.09.1975 allowed the appeal filed
by contesting respondent no. 4 and
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners
directing to record the name of the
petitioners over 1/2 share of the plot in
dispute and contesting respondent no. 4 was
also ordered to be recorded over 1/2 share of
the plot in dispute. Petitioners challenged
the appellate order dated 20.09.1975 in
revision under Section 48 of UPCH Act
before Deputy Director of Consolidation,
which was registered as Revision No.
185. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 15.03.1980, dismissed the
1880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revision filed by the petitioners and affirmed
the order of Assistant Settlement Officer,
Consolidation. Hence, this writ petition on
behalf of petitioners challenging the
impugned orders passed by the respondent
nos. 1, 2 & 3.

3. This Court has entertained the
matter and granted interim protection on
03.07.1980 staying the dispossession of the
petitioner from the plot in question.

4. In pursuance of the order dated
03.07.1980 parties have exchanged their
affidavits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that predecessor of the petitioners
were recorded over the plot in question in
the first settlement but without any order of
the court the predecessor of the contesting
respondent no. 4 was recorded in the second
settlement, as such the objection filed by the
petitioners claiming sole tenancy in respect
to the Plot Nos. 1365, 1366 and 1390 is to
be allowed and the name of the contesting
respondent is to be expunged from Plot Nos.
1365, 1366 & 1390. He further submitted
that in respect to the Plot Nos. 1327 & 1328
sale deeds were executed in favour of the
petitioners' predecessor, as such petitioners
were entitled to 2/3 shares and contesting
respondents are entitled to 1/3 share in
respect to Plot No. 1327 & 1328. He
submitted that in the sale deed the contesting
respondent no. 4 was witness as such they
cannot deny the execution of the sale deed
in favour of predecessor of petitioners as
such petitioners should be ordered to be
recorded over Plot Nos. 1327 & 1328 having
2/3 share. He submitted that all the orders
passed by consolidation authorities are
liable to be set aside and the petitioners
objection under Section 9-A(2) of UPCH
Act is to be allowed in toto.

6. On the other hand, Mr. P. B. Umrao,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent no. 4/3 submitted that the
predecessor of contesting respondents were
recorded since second settlement along with
predecessor of the petitioners and the entry
continued till the basic year of the
consolidation
operation
as
such
the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation
has
rightly held that both parties are entitled to
1/2 share each in respect to all the plots. He
further submitted that sale deed, which are
even unregistered also cannot be executed in
respect to the Sirdari plots as such there is
no illegality in the finding of the fact
recorded by the Assistant Settlement
Officer, Consolidation, while deciding the
appeal filed by both parties. He submitted
that no interference is required against
impugned judgment and writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that in the basic year of the consolidation
operation both parties were jointly recorded
over the plot in question. There is also no
dispute about the fact that petitioners filed
objection under section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act
against the basic year entry, which has been
decided by consolidation authorities under
the impugned judgment finally it has been
held that both parties are entitled to be
recorded over 1/2 shares each over the plot
in question.

9. The undisputed family pedigree
which is also mentioned in the judgment of
appellate court will be relevant for perusal,
the same is as under:-

PEDIGREE
5 All. Gaya Prasad & Ors. Vs. J.D.C. & Ors.
1881

10. The pedigree mentioned above
demonstrate that petitioners are from the
branch of Bhagwandeen & respondent no. 4
is from the branch of Gayadeen.

11. The perusal of the appellate Court
order dated 20.09.1975 will be also relevant
in order to appreciate the consideration of
evidences of settlement year by the appellate
Court, which is as under:-

न्यरयरिय सहरयक बन्िोबस्त अदिकररी चकबन्िी फतेहपुर
अपीि सां० 532/55 वसन 75 िररर 11 (1)
चकबन्िी अदिदनयर्
ग्ररर् कोरसर् परगनर दबन्िकी दजिर फतेहपुर
1- करिीचरन बनरर् गयर प्रसरि आदि
2- गयर प्रसरि आदि बनरर् करिीचरन

पहिे बन्िोबस्त र्ें र्ौजूिर गरटर 1365, 1366 कर
सरदबक गरटर 1339 थर जो दक 1384 को बन्िोबस्त र्ें तनहर जबर
के नरर् िजम थर। दकन्तु िूसरे बन्िोबस्त र्े यह िोनों नम्बररन िोनों पक्षों
के र्ूरसरन के नरर् िजम थर। गयर प्रसरि आदि ने र्ौजूिर खरतर 88
दजसकर रकबर 21-3-0 है के सांबांि र्ें दिखरयर है दक यह खरतर
पहिे बन्िोबस्त र्े तनहर अजगर के नरर् िजम थर इसर्ें यह सरदबत
दकयर है दक िोनों पक्षों के पूवमजों र्ें बन्िोबस्त एक से ही बटवररर हो
गयर थर यह बरत िोनों पक्षों को स्वीकरर िी है दक इस प्रकरर खरतर
सांख्यर 354 जो दक इस सर्य ररर्िरि पुत् दगरिररी के नरर् िजम है
पहिे खरतर 88 थर और अजगर कर थर।

गयर प्रसरि आदि के दवद्ववरन वकीि की बहस है दक
गरटर 1365, 1366 पहिे बन्िोबस्त र्े तनहर जबर के नरर् थर
और बटवररर हो चुकर थर इसदिये िूसरे बन्िोबस्त र्े इनकर इन्द्ररज
िोनों पक्षों के पूवमजों के नरर् गित हुआ केवि बन्िोबस्त र्ें शरदर्ि
प्रदवि हो जरने से कोई अदिकरर उत्तरवरिी करिीचरन के पूवमजों कर
नहीं थर केवि प्रदवि से कोई आगर् प्ररप्त नहीं होतर है। उसकर
पुिीकरण आर०डी० 1953 पेज 6 व आर० डी० 1952 पेज 142
से दकयर है।

उत्तरवरिी करिीचरन के दवद्ववरन वकीि की बहस है
दक आदखरी बन्िोबस्त की प्रदवि पहिे बन्िोबस्त से अदिक र्हत्व
की होती है इसदिये बन्िोबस्त 1319 की प्रदवि िोनों गरटों
1365,1366 के सांबांि र्ें सही र्रनी जरवेगी। आर०डी० 1958
पेज 13 के अनुसरर 1333 की प्रदवि िी र्हत्व पूणमत होती है और
उससे अदिक अांदतर् बन्िोबस्त की र्रनी गयी है। इसर्ें अिरवर
करिीचरन के दवद्ववरन वकीि की यह िी बहस है दक यह िोनों पक्षों
को स्वीकरर है दक बटवररर पहिे बन्िोबस्त र्ें हुआ थर और 40 सरि
से अदिक तथर एक सेटिर्ेट से करिीचरन के पूवमजों कर नरर् िजम है।
इसदिये गयर प्रसरि आदि कर िरवर तनहर करश्तकररी कर गित है।
जैसर आर०डी० 1940 पेजी 285 पर दनणमय हो चुकर है। बन्िोबस्त
1319 से गयर प्रसरि व उनके पूवमज ने उनके पूवमजों को सहखरतेिररी
स्वीकरर करते रहे हैं इसदिये िी स्टरपेि और एलवीसेन्स से करिीचरन
की सहखरतेिररी हो जरती है जैसर दक आर०डी० 1969 पेज 396
पर दनणमय हो चुकर है। इस दनणमय के अनुसरर करिी चरन की प्रदवि
18 सरि की सहखरतेिररी के सांबांि र्ें पयरमप्त है और इसर्ें िरआफ
प्िेदडांग िरगू है दजसके द्वररर एक दहस्सेिरर अपनी प्रथर् सम्पदत्त को
स्वेच्छर से सांयुक्त पररवरर की सम्पदत्त र्े शरदर्ि कर सकतर है जैसर
दक ए०आई०आर 1963 सुप्रीर्कोटम पेज 160 (बी) र्ें दनणमय हो
चुकर है।

उपरोक्त से प्रकट है दक गरटर 1365,1366 के सांबांि
र्े करिीचरन की अपीि उदचत है। जहरां तक गरटर 1390 कर प्रश्न
है इसकर गयर प्रसरि केवि इस आिरर पर तनहर चरहते हैं लयोंदक इस
पर उनकर तनहर कब्जर है। इसी सांबांि र्े र्ुझे कहनर है दक बहस की
दृदि से यह र्रन िी दियर जरय दक इसको गयर प्रसरि आदि जोते हैं
तो यह र्रनर जरवेगर दक आपसी बटवररर के आिरर पर जोते है लयोदक
1882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सांयुक्त खरते र्ें एक दहस्से िरर कर कब्जर सिी दहस्सेिररों कर कब्जर
र्रनर जरतर है जैसर दक आर०डी० 1971 पेज 408 व ए०डब्िू०
आर० 1973 पेज 368 पर दनणमय हो चुकर है। गरटर 1327,
1328 र्े गयर प्रसरि आदि कर 2/3 अांश र्रांगते है। चकबन्िी
अदिकररी ने 7/12 अांश दियर है इसको िी करिीचरन स्वीकरर नहीं
करते है। इसके सांबांि र्ें करिीचरन आदि ने यह दिखरयर है दक 1327
रकबर व-1 7-0 व 1328 रकबर 0-10-0 कर सरदवक नम्बर
1304 थर जो दक 1284 र्ें जबर 1/3 अजगर 1/3 बहरिुर 1/3
रघुनरथ 1/3 िजम थर इसके आिरर पर अजगर व जबर कर 2/3 अांश
बतरते हैं।

सांबांि 1943 के तीन बैनरर्र िरदखि दकये हैं और
यह दिखरयर है दक र्नई ने अपने 1/3 कर 3⁄4 यरनी 1⁄4 दहस्सर कुि
नम्बररन कर दवश्वनरथ को बेचर थर और 1/12 ढकोखर कुर्ी को बेचर
थर। ढकोखर कुर्ी र्ेरे खरनिरन कर है इसदिये 1/12 दहस्सर अजगर
और जबर कर और दर्ि गयर। इस प्रकरर अजगर और जबर कर 2/31-1/2:- 3⁄4 हो गयर और 1⁄4 अांश दवश्वनरथ ने दफर बेचर इसर्ें से
3/16 अजगर व जवरहर िोनों को दियर और 1/16 जबर को बेचर।
इस प्रकरर जबर कर दहस्सर 1/2-1-1/16, 9/16 होतर है और
7/16 करिीचरन कर होतर है। इस सांबांि र्ें र्ुझे यह कहनर है दक
यह दकांदचत सरदबत नहीं है दक र्नई दववरदित िूदर् र्ें दकस प्रकरर कर
करश्तकरर थर जब दक बहरिुर और रघुनरथ िजम थे। रघुनरथ कर वरररस
र्नई होनर सरदबत नहीं है। दववरदित िूदर् सीरिररी करश्तकररी है
इसदिये इनकर बैनरर्र िी होनर सरदबत नहीं है। चूाँदक इन बैनरर्ों की
र्रांग के आिरर पर दसिर बनरयर गयर है इसदिये इनकर सरदबत होनर
िी अदनवरयम थर जैसर दक िररतीय सरक्ष्य अदिदनयर् की िररर 10 क
र्ें उल्िेख है। इस प्रकरर गरटर 1327, 1328 के सांबांि र्े िी गयर
प्रसरि कर कथन गित है और करिीचरन की आपीि उदचत है। अतः
आिेश हुआ दक करिीचरन की आपीि सांख्यर 523 स्वीकरर की
जरती है गयर प्रसरि आदि की आपीि सांख्यर 559 खरररज की जरती
है। चकबन्िी अदिकररी कर दनणमय गरटर सांख्यर 1365, 1366,
1327, 1328 के सांबांि र्ें दनरस्त दकयर जरतर है तथर आिेश दकयर
जरतर है दक इन गरटों र्ें िी करिीचरन कर 1⁄2 अांश व गयर प्रसरि व
हजररी िरि व र्ोती िरि कर 1⁄2 अांश िजम हो। यही आिेश अपीि
सांख्यर 559 पर िी िरगू होगर।

ह० /- अपठनीय
हररश्चन्द्र दत्वेिी
दिनरांक 20-9-75
सहरयक बन्िोबस्त अदिकररी
चकबन्िी फतेहपुर।

12. The perusal of finding of fact
recorded by appellate Court demonstrate
that
the
predecessor
of
contesting
respondent were recorded along with
predecessor of petitioners, since the second
settlement year and the entry continued up
to the basic year of the consolidation
operation as such the finding of fact, which
has been recorded by the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Consolidation while
deciding the appeal filed by both parties for
1⁄2 share each is in accordance with law. The
exercise
of
appellate
jurisdiction
by
Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation
is in accordance with the provision of UPCH
Act. The appellate court has also recorded a
finding of fact that sale deed cannot be
executed in respect of the Sirdari plots,
which is also in accordance with law.

13. So far as the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is concern, the same was also in
accordance with UPCH Act as before
10.11.1980 the revisional Court was having
limited jurisdiction under Section 48 of
UPCH Act as such there was no illegality
in the impugned revisional order dated
15.03.1980 by which revision filed by the
petitioners was dismissed upholding the
judgment of appellate Court giving 1⁄2
share to both parties in respect to plots in
dispute.

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, specially joint
entry of both parties with effect from second
settlement year, no interference is required
against the impugned judgment passed by
the consolidation authorities.

15. This petition is dismissed,
accordingly.

16. No order as to cost.
----------
5 All. Hriday Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1883
(2024) 5 ILRA 1883
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 1006734 of 2013

Hriday Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjai Srivastava, Manoj Kumar, Rama Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
 S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Petitioner taken
agricultural loan-mortgaged half share of a landloan remained outstanding-land was put to
auction thrice- highest bidder was respondent
no.6-settled in his favour-sale certificate was
issued-auction was objected by Petitionerrejected being highly belated-Revision-rejectedimpugned- challenging that Assistant Collector
not empowered- Assistant Collector of first class
is empowered by the St. Government by a
notification to exercise function of a collector/s
286 of the Act in respect of any holding of a
defaulter- subject to sale approved by the
Collector-no infirmity in the proceedings.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Shiv Narain Dubey Vs St. of U.P. & Ors., 2011 SCC
OnLine All 1598

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastav, learned
counsel for petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5
and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, along with
Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent No. 6, 8 to 11.

2. The petitioner has approached this
Court being aggrieved by the orders dated
22.03.2013 and 09.12.2012 passed by Board
of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh as well as
Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda
thereby rejecting the petitionof the petitioner
challenging the auction proceedings.

3. Facts in brief necessary for
adjudication of the present case are that the
petitioner had taken an agricultural loan in the
year 1991 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-
from Allahabad Bank, District Bahraich to
purchase a tractor and a threasure. To secure
the said loan, the petitioner has mortgaged half
share of land situated at Khasra No. 595 and
675, Gata no. 291 situated at Village Pipri
Mohan, Pargana Fakarpur, Tehsil ?Mahasi,
District Bahraich,. The petitioner had repaid
only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the bank
and the rest of the amount was not paid by him.

4. In light of the fact that the loan
remained outstanding, recovery proceedings
were initiated by the bank. The land was put to
auction thrice. On the first occasion, no one
came to participate in the said auction. On the
second occasion also, no one came to
participate in the said auction and the land was
purchased by the State Government for Rs.
1/-. Subsequently, on objection being filed, the
said auction was again set aside and the land
was put to auction to third occasion. It is on
this occasion that in the auction proceedings,
respondent No. 6 had participated and was the
successful bidder out of the three bidders and
accordingly the auction proceeding was
settled in favour of respondent No. 6.

5. The auction was held on 17.05.2004
and 1/4th of the amount was deposited on
the same day while the remaining 3/4th