# Ram Dular v. D.D.C., Jaunpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 692
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-01
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 4488 of 1987
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-dular-v-d-d-c-jaunpur-ors-44731
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Section - 9(A)(2) - W.P.- filed by Ram Dular -
challenging an order of the DDC - restoring an
order of the C.O- on an objection under Section
9A(2) of the U.P. C H Act- setting aside the order
passed by the S.O.C -without considering the
documents and evidences available on record-in
an arbitrary way-remanded back to DDC for
proper consideration.

Held: - petition succeeds in part and is
allowed to the extent that the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to
the Deputy Director of Consolidation where
Revision shall stand restored to the file of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation to be
determined afresh.

Writ Petition allowed in part (E-8)

## Text

692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parties in the suit property and the
findings of the first appellate court could
not have been set-aside on the ground that
the said evidence were not considered by
the first appellate court. There was no
perversity in the findings of the first
appellate court empowering the Board of
Revenue to interfere in the said findings
exercising its powers under Section
331(4) of the Act, 1950 read with Section
100 CPC. Evidently, the Board of
Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction
under Section 331(4) of the Act, 1950
read with Section 100 CPC by interfering
in the findings of the first appellate court
and the impugned order of the Board of
Revenue is contrary to law.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, the
order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the Board of
Revenue in Second Appeal No. 124 of
1993-94 is liable to be set-aside and is,
hereby, quashed. The order dated 27.7.1994
passed by the first appellate court in Appeal
No. 104 of 1993-94 is restored.

22. The writ petition is allowed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 692

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-B No. 4488 of 1987

Ram Dular ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C., Jaunpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri C.P. Srivastava, Sri Adarsh Bhushan,
Sri Anil Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahendra Pratap, Sri R.P. Ram, S.C.

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Section - 9(A)(2) - W.P.- filed by Ram Dular -
challenging an order of the DDC - restoring an
order of the C.O- on an objection under Section
9A(2) of the U.P. C H Act- setting aside the order
passed by the S.O.C -without considering the
documents and evidences available on record-in
an arbitrary way-remanded back to DDC for
proper consideration.

Held: - petition succeeds in part and is
allowed to the extent that the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to
the Deputy Director of Consolidation where
Revision shall stand restored to the file of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation to be
determined afresh.

Writ Petition allowed in part (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
originally by one, Ram Dular S/o Bharos a
native of village Akkipur Post Chhatai Kala
(Shahganj), District Jaunpur challenging an
order
of
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation dated 16.02.1987, whereby
he
has
restored
an
order
of
the
Consolidation Officer dated 05.05.1984
made on an objection under Section 9A(2)
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
(for short the 'Act'), setting aside the order
dated 21.08.1986, passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation.

2. Heard Sri Neelabh Srivastava,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Adarsh
Bhushan,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and Sri Ram Prakash Ram,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
2 All. Ram Dular Vs D.D.C., Jaunpur & Ors.
693
respondent no. 3, Ram Lakhan, now
represented by his heirs and legal
representatives, numbering six.

3.

These
proceedings
have
commenced
on
an
objection
under
Section 9A(2) of the Act filed by a third
respondent
before
the
Consolidation
Officer. The dispute relates to khasra nos.
77 and 385 of Khata No. 100 that was
entered in the name of the petitioner and
the third respondent when Chakbandi
operations commenced a second time in
the year 1983-84. The objection of the
petitioner was that he was entitled to be
recorded as the sole tenure holder over the
said plots, that are hereinafter referred to
as the 'property in dispute', to the
exclusion of third respondent. It was the
third respondent's case that the name of
the petitioner had been wrongly recorded
and was liable to be expunged. The
petitioner contested third respondent's
objection and claimed that it was a joint
holding that had been inherited from the
parties' common ancestor one, Chikhur.
According to the petitioner, Chikhur had
two sons, Shivraj and Bujha. Bujha had a
son, Bharos. The petitioner is the son of
Bharos. He had two brothers, Matai and
Satai, who died issueless. According to
the petitioner, the property came from
Chikhur and went by way of succession
with a half share each in the branches of
Shivraj and Bhuja. What came to the
petitioner was the half share that went to
the branch of Bujha. During the life time
of the petitioner's brothers, Matai and
Satai, the petitioner along with two
brothers had a 1/6th share each. Since,
Matai and Satai, the two brothers of the
petitioner died during his life time and
issueless, their share was inherited by the
petitioner enlarging it to a complete half.
It was urged that in the branch of Shivraj,
his half share was inherited by his only
son Hichhu, and from him by his son,
Ram Lakhan (respondent no. 3). The
contention of the petitioner is that in his
reply to the objections of the third
respondent was that half share over the
land in dispute was rightly recorded in the
basic year khatauni of the second round of
Chakbandi operations, and that, that was
the position which remained throughout.
The first round of chakbandi operations
commenced in the year 1955. He
contended that during the first round of
chakbandi operations, no issue about the
petitioner's share was raised by Ram
Lakhan or his predecessor-in-interest and
those
chakbandi
operations
were
concluded with the de-notification under
Section 52 of the Act. It was contended
that the present chakbandi operations, that
had commenced in the year 1983-84,
therefore, correctly recorded in the basic
year, a half share for the petitioner and the
third respondent, regarding which no
objections could now be raised. Bar of
Section 49 of the Act was also pleaded on
the basis of the first round of chakbadi
operations, where this objection was not
at all raised.

4. The Consolidation Officer, while
deciding objection framed issues to the
following effect:

1. Whether the name of Ram Dular,
Satai and Matai are liable to be expunged
from the khata in dispute?, and;

2. Whether the name of Ram Lakhan
deserves to be recorded exclusively?

5. The third respondent in support of
his objection filed a khatauni for the Fasli
year 1334, which shows the name of
Hichhu S/o Shivraj to be recorded there,
exclusively. A further khatauni for the
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fasli year 1309 was filed which shows the
name of Chikhur to be recorded. In
another khatauni for the Fasli year 1356,
has been filed on behalf of the third
respondent, where name of Hichhu finds
record. There is a copy of the khatauni for
the Fasli year 1362 filed by the objectorrespondent no. 3, where the name of
Hichhu, his father is exclusively recorded.

6. Lateron, during mutation, the name
of Hichhu has been expunged, and in his
place, the name of Ram Lakhan has been
recorded as his heir. The Consolidation
Officer has recorded that in the khatauni for
the Fasli Year 1362 there is a note that the
name of Ram Lakhan has been rubbed off
and in the order of the ACO, dated
23.05.1956 the name of one, Bharos has
been entered. The name of petitioner's
father has been recorded as Sirdar and cotenure holder along with Ram Lakhan. The
aforesaid entry does not mention the case
number wherein the ACO passed that order.
CH Form 41 has also been noticed to be
filed amongst other documents on behalf of
third
respondent.
On
behalf
of
the
petitioner,
by
way
of
documentary
evidence, a copy of khatauni for the Fasli
year 1362 has been filed. CH Form 20
relating to the last chakbandi operations and
the record of proceedings under Section 8 of
the Act has been filed. There is also a copy
of a judgment passed in Case No. 58/2971
''State
vs.
Ram
Dular'
decided
on
16.12.1971,
which
the
Consolidation
Officer has noted, has been filed to show
that a criminal litigation was persued
between Ram Lakhan and Ram Dular,
under Section 313 IPC. The Consolidation
Officer has mentioned in the passing in his
judgment that extracts of khatauni and the
revenue recipets, have also been filed. It
must be remarked here that the Consolidatin
Officer has not elaborated as to what those
khataunies are, or what is detailed there, or
what the revenue receipts filed indicate.
There is no reference to the contents of any
of these documents, including the revenue
receipts or the khatauni that have been filed
on behalf of the petitioner. Oral evidence on
behalf of Ram Lakhan figures as as the
testimony of Ram Lakhan himself and his
witness Vanshu that was recorded in the
witness box, whereas in support of Ram
Dular's case, Ram Dular himself and his
witness
Rampyare's
deposition.
The
Consolidation Officer held that in the old
khatauni for the Fasli year 1309, name of
Chikhur finds record and, thereafter, in the
khatuani for the fasli year 1334, name of
Hichhu S/o Shivraj has been recorded. It
has been observed by the Consolidation
Officer during the course of his decision
that the petitioner, Ram Dular has not filed
any documentary evidence to show that
Chikhur had two sons. He observed that in
case Chikhur had two sons, names of both
would have figured in the khatauni for the
fasli year 1334. It has been reasoned that no
documentary evidence has been brought on
record to show that Hichhu was the only
son of Chikhur or he had another son. The
Consolidation Officer has also held that in
the fasli year 1362, name of Hichhu finds
record and after him, the name of Ram
Lakhan has been entered on the basis of
succession. From all this, the Consolidation
Officer has inferred that Chikhur had no son
by the name of Bujha; instead, it is inferable
that he had one son, Shivraj, whose lone son
is Hichchu. The Consolidation Officer
further held that Ram Dular, his father
Bharos and his father, Bhuja have nothing
to do with the property in dispute.

7. The Consolidation Officer has
addressed the question as to what is the
effect of non objection during the
previous
chakbandi,
Bharos
being
2 All. Ram Dular Vs D.D.C., Jaunpur & Ors.
695
recorded as a co-sharer. His name has
entered in the khatauni for the fasli year
1362, but the mutation made under an
order of the ACO does not mention any
case number, which shows that the entry
is fictitious. No copy of the decision
rendered by the ACO, on the basis of
which the said entry has been made, has
been filed. The Consolidation Officer also
recorded that during the old Chakbandi
CH Form 4-7 would carry these kinds of
orders but there is no certification of the
said forms also.

8. The Consolidation Officer has also
reasoned in support of his conclusions that
in fasli year 1362, the mutation that has
been made, there is an endorsement in red
ink and also a note in red Ink, where the
name originally entered has been erased,
and, the name of Bharos has been added
there. Nothing about this objection was said
during the first round of Chakbandi. The
Consolidation Officer has held that the third
respondent was a minor at that time and that
Bharos got his name recorded, illegally. In
order to reassure himself about his
conclusions, he has recorded the fact that
the petitioner, Ram Dular would be aged
about 36 years during the first round of
Chakbandi in the year 1955-56, whereas
third respondent would be aged about 8
years. As such, the Consolidation Officer
has concluded that the name of first
petitioner has been recorded without any
basis, and, is the result of a fictitious entry
on the foot of which the petitioner now
claims a half share. Accordingly, the
objections of third respondent were allowed
and the name of the petitioner was ordered
to be expunged with regard to his half share
in the land in dispute.

9. The petitioner appealed the
decision of the Consolidation Officer,
under Section 11 of the Act to the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
undertook a plenary review of the
evidence on record. A perusal of that
judgment shows that the Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
took
into
consideration the khatauni for the fasli
year 1309 in relation to which he has said
that the said khatauni shows that on some
part of the land in dispute, during the fasli
year 1309, Chikhur is recorded for the
past 26 years. From the said entry and its
age relative to the point of time to which
it relates, the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation concluded that this entry
relates to the time of the last bandobast,
and, that it shows the property in dispute
to be a self acquired property of Chikhur.
The Appellate Court has then considered
the khatauni for the fasli year 1354-1356,
where the name of Hichhu S/o Shivraj is
recorded. He has further taken note of the
entry that finds place in 1362 fasli (basic
year relating to the first round of
chakbandi), where the land in dispute is
recorded in the name of Hichhu S/o
Shivraj. There is an order of the Sub
Divisional Officer, dated 07.01.1955
where in place of Hichhu(deceased), the
name of Ram Lakhan, respondent no. 3 is
recorded as his heir. The Settlement
Officer, Consolidation has gone on to
note that on 19.03.1955, chakbandi
operations were notified in the gazette and
the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
passed an order dated 23.05.1956 on the
basis of which the name of Bharos has
been entered over the land in dispute
(Khata no. 45), as a co-sharer along with
the third respondent. It is also noted here
that in relation to Khata no. 123 which is
not the property in dispute, the name of
Bharos has been recorded under orders of
the Consolidation Officer, in fasli year
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1362 as a co-sharer in that khata. The
Consolidation Officer noted in the order
impugned that in accordance with the
rules applicable to chakbandi operations
during that time, that is to say, when the
first round of chakbandi operations went
through,
the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer did a partal (survey) under Section
8 of the Act. He verified in that exercise
as to what the dispute between the parties
was all about. He issued a provisional
notice to both parties, that is to say, to
Bharos, the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioner on one hand and to Ram Dular,
respondent no. 3, on the other.

10.

Dealing
with
the
third
respondent's case that the entry claimed
by the petitioner in the fasli year 1362
was the result of a forgery, the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation took note of the
draft khatauni, CH Form 30, relating to
another khata no. 95, where names of
Ram Lakhan and Bharos have been
entered together as co-sharers. He has
also taken note of like entries as cosharers between the petitioner and the
third respondent, in relation to the land at
village Sadpur, where in CH Form 20, the
name of both, Bharos and the the third
respondent, Ram Lakhan find place. In
particular, the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation took into consideration,
some 40 odd revenue receipts. The order
of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation
shows that the land was co-shared by
Bharos and Ram Dular.

11.

The
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation has specifically noted the
fact that the pedigree propounded by Ram
Dular in his written statement has not
been
dispelled
by
Ram
Lakhan,
respondent no. 3, on the basis of evidence
led in the case. He has taken note of the
family register relating to the year 1983,
which shows that in the house no. 45,
Ram Lakhan has been indicated to be the
head of the family, living along with one
Bhikaiya
and
another
Bhagwandei.
Bhikaiya is the widowed mother, whereas
Bhagwandei is the third respondent's wife.
The Court has recorded for a fact that on
the basis of oral evidence of Ram Lakhan
where he has testified himself, besides his
witness,
Vanshu,
it
has
been
acknowledged by Vanshu in his crossexamination that he does not know that
Bujha and Shivraj were brothers, and the
number of sons that Chikhur had. The
witness has also said that he does not
know about the family tree of parties. It is
also said by him that land in dispute is
very old. He does not know about the
khata number. The witness also said that
he has no animosity against Ram Dular.
He has denied testifying in the criminal
case on behalf of Ram Dular. The witness
has been opined by the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation to be one not acquainted
with important and material facts. It is
also observed by the Court that this
witness
has
refuted
documentary
evidence. The Appellate Court has
noticed that on the basis of proceedings of
a criminal case between parties, the
details of which have been recorded in the
judgment, it has proven that criminal
litigation between Ram Dular and Ram
Lakhan at some point of time was there.
The testimony of Ram Dular in the
witness box has also been taken note of. It
has been remarked by the Appellate Court
that in his evidence Ram Dular has sought
to prove the pedigree propounded by him
with the aid of own evidence in the
witness box and that of his witness,
Rampyare. It is observed by the Trial
Court that Ram Dular has supported the
pedigree pleaded by him in his written
2 All. Ram Dular Vs D.D.C., Jaunpur & Ors.
697
statement, whereas Ram Lakhan has said
nothing about this pedigree in oral
evidence, recorded in the witness box.
Here, it is remarked by the Appellate
Court that not only Ram Lakhan has not
said anything to disprove the pedigree in
his oral evidence, but he has also not
disputed Ram Dular's pedigree in his oral
evidence. This Court must remark here
that by this the Appellate Court does not
mean that Ram Lakhan has accepted for a
case Ram Dular's pedigree, which he has
disputed in all his objections, filed before
the Court of first instance. All that, the
Appellate Court has remarked is that in
his evidence, Ram Lakhan has not
disputed Ram Dular's pedigree, by words
patent.

12. It is also remarked by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation that
when the co-sharers were recorded in the
basic year khatauni during the first round
of chakbandi, Ram Lakhan was a minor,
and, therefore, those entries do no bind
him. He has perused the family register to
find that the date of birth of Ram Lakhan,
recorded there, is 12.07.1947. It is a
matter of arithmetical calculation that
going by the said date of birth, Ram
Lakhan was a minor in the year 1956. In
the year 1965, he would have turned a
major. He did not object during the entire
period of limitation from 1965 to 1968,
which he could and ought to have done, if
he were aggrieved by the entry made in
the basic year, in the year 1962. It has
also been recorded that Ram Lakhan has
not filed in his documentary evidence,
even a single receipt evidencing payment
of land revenue paid by him whereas Ram
Dular has filed numerous such receipts,
which indicate him to be a co-tenure
holder along with Ram Lakhan, since the
previous round of chakbandi. It has been
inferred from these facts that the land
appears to be ancestral, where the name of
Ram Dular's predecessor was left out, but
recorded in the basic year, before
commencement
of
first
round
of
chakbandi operations. The Settlement
Officer of Consolidation has also taken
note of a submission advanced on behalf
of the petitioner, Ram Dular that Ram
Lakhan got a reference made by the
Consolidation
Officer,
regarding
his
claimed rights to exclusive tenure of the
land in dispute which was made to the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, behind
the petitioner's back. It was also accepted
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
without notice to the petitioner. The
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner also is that the Appellate Court
took into account that this exercise of a
reference being made and decided behind
the petitioner's back, shows that Ram
Lakhan knew well that the basic year
entry in favour of Ram Dular was not
wrong, and that these were only stray
entries in his favour, that showed him as
the exclusive bhumidhar. The Settlement
Officer of Consolidation here also noticed
that submission advanced on behalf of
Ram Dular that both parties knew that the
name of Bharos has been recorded as a
co-tenure holder during the first round of
chakbandi, but no steps were taken to
undo that entry, while the said chakbandi
was current. This feature made it clear
that the case of the third respondent is
hindered by an estopple, besides the
statutory bar of Section 49 of the Act.
Thus, the entries in the first round of
chakbandi could now not be challeged.
The Settlement Officer of Consolidation
also took into account the submission of
learned counsel for the third respondent,
Ram
Lakhan
that
during
the
last
bandobast, once the name of Hichhu S/o
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shivraj has been recorded after the last
bandobast in the fasli year 1334, that
continued for a long period of time, in
case Shivraj and Bhuja were brothers,
Bhuja ought to have filed a suit under the
U.P. Tenancy Act, seeking to get himself
declared and recorded as a co-sharer. The
Settlement Officer of Consolidation after
going through all these evidence very
carefully took note of the fact that during
the last chakbandi in the CH Form 20 and
25, on the basis of valid orders, entries of
co-sharer's rights were made in favour of
the petitioner's predecessors' which Ram
Lakhan
or
his
predecessor
never
challenged. They have also not produced
any revenue receipts to establish that they
have been in exclusive possession of the
land in dispute, paying land revenue to the
Government in token of such exclusive
possession. On the basis of all this
analysis
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation held the petitioner to be a
validly recorded co-tenure holder, along
with the third respondent, Ram Lakhan, to
the extent of half share and allowed the
appeal.

13. Aggrieved, the third respondent,
Ram Lakhan preferred a revision to the
Deputy Director of Consolidation. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation by
means of the impugned order set aside the
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation and restored that of the
Consolidation Officer. In doing so, the
reasoning adopted by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation is this. According to him
chakbandi in the village had commenced,
in the second round, in the fasli year
1309. The land in dispute was recorded in
the name of Chikhur. Subsequently, in the
khatauni for the years 1334, 1356 and
1362, Hichhu S/o Shivraj was recorded.
In the fasli year 1362 that was the basic
year for the first round of chakbandi, there
were three mutation orders recorded. The
first was a mutation under orders of the
Sub Divisional Officer dated 07.01.1955,
relating to the succession in favour of
Ram Lakhan, whereby the name of
Hichhu was mutated out and on the basis
of inheritance, the name of Ram Lakhan
was entered. The second and the third
mutation orders were those of the
Assistant Consolidation Officer, dated
23.05.1956, whereby over khata no. 439,
the name of Bharos was recorded as a
sirdar. By the second mutation order
carried out over khata no. 45 (land in
dispute), the name of Bharos was
recorded as a sirdar. From these mutation
orders,
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has remarked that it is clear
that during the previous round of
chakbandi, the present dispute had been
raised and these orders in relation to that
dispute were passed and recorded. Here,
he has noted the contention of the third
respondent, Ram Lakhan that the order of
Assistant Consolidation Officer dated
23.05.1956 relates to khata no. 439 alone,
by which the name of Bharos has been
directed to be entered as a sirdar over the
said khata, whereas according to the
petitioner, Ram Dular, by the order of the
Assistant Consolidation Officer dated
23.05.1956, he has been directed to be
recorded as a co-sharer over the land in
dispute also. The Settlement Officer of
Consolidation has identified the issue as
one where he had to find out that out of
the two orders, which of these are correct.
In his reasoning, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has held that in the
khatauni of 1362 fasli, it is clear that the
mutation carried out pursuant to the order
of the Assistant Consolidation Officer,
does not bear signatures of the officials
carrying out the mutation and verifying it.
2 All. Ram Dular Vs D.D.C., Jaunpur & Ors.
699
The mutation entry also does not bear the
case number. It is also recorded that the
names of tenure holders also show that
there
is
erasure
somewhere
and
overwriting, all of which make it clear
that these mutations are fictitious. It has
then been remarked that this Court in its
various authorities has expressed judicial
opinion in favour of construing such
fictitious entries as not conferring any
title.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has then held that so far as
the question of parties belonging to the
same family is concerned, when the
question was not raised or determined
during the first round of chakbandi, the
same cannot be raised now, in view of the
bar under Section 49 of the Act. The order
of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation
has been held to be flawed and that of the
Consolidation Officer to be valid. The
entries in the khatauni of 1362 Fasli have
been held to be fictitious by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation.

14. Now, the question to be
considered by this Court is whether truly
speaking
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation is right in his conclusions,
about the entries in favour of the
petitioner being fictitious. A perusal of
the order of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation would show that he has
gone straight to the entries made in the
basic year, that is to say, 1362 fasli and
viewed it in the same manner as the
Consolidation Officer has done. Sitting as
a Court of revision above the appellate
determination made by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has not dealt
with or reversed well considered and
reasoned
findings,
recorded
by
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation.
These findings are based not only on
documentary evidence, or the way the
entries have appeared to the eyes of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation and the
Consolidation Officer, but also on the
basis of other relevant documentary
evidence, that prima facie corroborate the
petitioner's case, besides oral evidence of
parties, which the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation
has
considered
and
evaluated in great detail to reach his
conclusions.

15. No doubt, the Deputy Director
of Consolidation with all his wide powers
under Section 48 of the Act, that have
become wider after the additon of
explanation (3) could have reversed the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, but
that he could do, provided he reversed all
those findings that the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation has recorded on the basis of
evidence, and for prima facie good
reasons assigned. Reversal also has to be
made for cogent reasons, may be different
from those recorded by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation. There could not
be just reversal of the Settlement Officer's
findings, without assigning reasons. These
are various findings that the Settlement
Officer Consolidation has recorded about
the pedigree of the parties, the inheritance
of the joint tenancy, the record of
proceedings during the first round of
chakbandi, and, particularly, non raising
of objections during the first round of
chakbandi, where entry in favour of the
petitioner was made in the basic year
relative to the first round of chakbandi.
Here, it must be remarked that an entry
that is forged and fictitious, no doubt can
and ought to be ignored where it is found
to be so and expugned, but at the same
time, an entry that has not been objected
to for years together and allowed to
continue in the revenue records, so much
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so that it was there at the commencement
of the first round of chakbandi, and
travelled
to
the
second
round
of
chakbandi, without any objection by the
person who claims it to be forged now, is
a circumstance which ought to be
considered before an inference about that
entry being forged is drawn. So far as the
submission that during the first round of
chakbandi the third respondent was a
minor,
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
has
recorded
detailed
findings that evidence prima facie shows
that though he was a minor at the time of
commencement
of
those
operations,
pending those opereations, the third
respondent came of age and could have
very well raised this objection that the
entries were forged, which he did not do.
These are the factors which the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation took into the
consideration, but the Deputy Director of
Consolidation
while
upturning
the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation's
orders has not bestowed any consideration
to this finding of the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation.
This
and
the
other
findings, as already said ought to have
been reversed if the order had to be set
aside
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
for
cogent
reasons
assigned. There could be no upsetting of
the appellate order by the order impugned
scripted
across
two
pages,
but
in
substance, one that does not effectively
reverse all those detailed findings that the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation has
recorded. Even if the reversal of the
findings by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is to be inferred, it is no
more than an ipse dixit of the Officer,
without any reason assigned for the
reversal. This Court at this stage makes it
clear that there is no expression of
opinion about the validity of the findings,
either recorded by the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation, or the Deputy Director
of Consolidation. It is all about the
manner in which the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has reversed the order of
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation,
without adhering to the fundamental
requirements of writing a judgment of
reversal. It is also made clear that Deputy
Director of Consolidation, when he redetermines this matter, pursuant to the
order being hereby made will be free to
record
his
findings
without
being
influenced by anything said in this order,
but certainly in accordance with the
standard and requirements of writing a
judgment of affirmation, reversal, or a
remand
further
down, whatever
he
determines. It goes without saying that
while taking his decision Deputy Director
of Consolidation will be guided by
relevant evidence, and, of course, by the
provisions of law that create or support
rights of parties, such as the bar under
Section 49 of the Act, if inferable, or the
principle of estopple or the other well
settled principles attracted.

16. In the result this petition
succeeds in part and is allowed to the
extent that the impugned order passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
dated 05.05.1984 is hereby quahsed. The
matter is remanded to the Deputy Director
of Consolidation where Revision No.
1347 shall stand restored to the file of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation to be
determined afresh in accordance with law
after putting both parties to notice. Since,
both parties are represented before this
Court, it is directed they will appear
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation on 30.08.2019, whereafter
the Deputy Director of Consolidation will
fix a date for hearing. The Deputy
2 All. Lalloo & Ors. Vs The Board of Revenue & Ors.
701
Director of Consolidation will proceed to
determine the revision afresh, within a
period of three months next from the date
of first appearance by the parties.

17. Until decision by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation the status-quo regarding
possession over the land in dispute as exits
today shall be maintained by both parties.

18. Costs easy.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 701

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Writ-B No. 21737 of 2004

Lalloo & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Board of Revenue & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, Sri Prashant
Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.L. Nigam, Sri Anuj Kumar, Sri
N.B. Nigam, Sri N.K. Baranwal, Sri Rajesh
Kumar, Sri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri
Shivajee Srivastava, Sri V.K. Baranwal

A. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition &
Land Reforms Act, 1950- Sections 8(3) &
229 B - any transfer of immovable property by
natural guardian-in contravention to S.8(1) &
(2)-voidable-at instance of minors or any person
claiming under him.

B. Section 229B of UP.Z. A & LR Ac t- suit for
mere declaration of rights in agricultural landnot maintainable-as suit is based on transfer
by guardian-without taking permission from
competent court (District Judge).

Held :- suit for mere declaration of rights in
respect of agricultural land under Section 229B
of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act is not maintainable as the
same is based on transfer made by the
guardians of the plaintiffs without taking the
permission from the competent court (District
Judge) and the said document is rendered
voidable in view of Section 8 (3) of the Act of
1956 for which the suit for cancellation of said
instrument is required to be filed before the
competent court.

Writ Petition dismissed (E-8)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Punni Lal Vs. Rajender Singh & Anr. 1993
(SC) 1117

2. Prem Singh Vs. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353

3. Kamla Prasad & Ors Vs. Krishna Kant Pathak
& Ors (2007) 4 SCC 213

4. Tej Bhan Singh Anr. Vs. IX ADJ Jaunpur &
Ors. 1994 RD 496

5. Ram Awalamb Anr Vs. Jata Shanker & Ors
AIR 1969 ALL 526 (F.B.)

6. Vishwambhar & Anr Vs. Laxmi Narayana
(Dead) through Lrs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2607

7. Sursati Devi Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation,
Basti & Ors 1983 ALL L.J. 1473 (Parag 53)

8. Ram Padarath and Ors Vs. Second ADJ &
Ors 1989 (1) AWC 290 (F.B.).

9. Smt. Bismilla Vs. Janeshwar AIR 1990 SC 504

10. Shri Ram & Anr. Vs. Ist Additional Judge,
2001 (92) RD 241 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi, J.)

1. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution has been