# Ram Kishun Singh @ Ram Krishna Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors 1614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1613
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7672 of 2013
- **Bench:** V.K. Shukla, Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kishun-singh-ram-krishna-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-1614-indian-law-42830
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Section-9- Vesting of
land-petitioner seeking direction permitting
to execute the sale-on ground his father
was recorded as Bhumidhar-after his death
petitioner became owner-plot in question
recorded as Abad over which since 1906
Bank is running consolidation authoritiesno power to record the name of heir as
bhumidhar-on his background plea of bankabout settlement under section 9 of the
Act-proper-no mandamus can be issued.

Held: Para-13&14
13-It is also admitted case between the
parties that after abolition of the Zamindari,
no proceedings was ever initiated by the
father of the petitioner and even after the
death of the father of the petitioner in 1980,
the
petitioner
did
not
initiate
any
proceeding. The silence on the part of the
petitioner as well as his father for the more
than of 50 years cannot be raised and
adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction under
article 226.

14- The Court is of the view that property on
which the Bank stands was deemed to have
been settled in favour of the Bank by the
State under section 9 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act.

## Text

3 All] Ram Kishun Singh @ Ram Krishna Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1613
shall not be valid or recognized; anything
contained in any other law for the time
being
in
force
to
the
contrary
notwithstanding."

11. The relevant portion of the
provisions of Section 4, as it was in 1982
is quoted below:-

4.
Declaration
and
notification
regarding consolidation.- (1)

(2) (a) When the State Government
decides to start consolidation operations,
either in an area covered by a declaration
issued under sub-section (1) or in any other
area, it may issue a notification to that effect.

(b) Every such notification shall be
published in the official Gazette and in
each unit in the said area.

12. Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act
imposes a restriction on transfer by way of
sale, gift or exchange of the holding or any
part of it in the consolidation area, except
with prior permission of Settlement Officer
Consolidation. The consolidation area has
been defined as "the area in respect of which
a notification under Section 4 has been
issued". Mode of issuing notification under
Section 4 has been provided under Section 4
(2) (b) by publishing the notification in the
official Gazette and in each unit in the said
area. Under Section 2 (8) of the Act,
publication in the unit has to be made by
reading out, the document in the unit on a
date of which prior notice shall be given by
beat of drum, and proclamation by beat of
drum, or, in any other customary mode, in
the unit of the fact that the document is open
to public inspection at an appointed place
and time. Thus so long as notification is not
published in the unit the restrictions imposed
upon Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act will not
apply. Use of different words under Section
Section 5 (1) and 5 (2) of the Act are nothing
to do with the restriction for transfer, which
has been imposed in the consolidation area,
which has a definite meaning under the Act.
In the cases relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioners, this Court has rightly held
that so long as notification under Section 4
(2) (b) of the Act is not made in the unit, the
restrictions under Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) will
not apply. I do not find any reason to take a
different view. Admittedly notification under
Section 4 (2) (b) of the Act, in the unit was
made on 24.09.1982 and sale deeds were
executed on 04.09.1982 as such these sale
deeds are not invalid under Section 45-A (2)
of the Act. The consolidation authorities
have illegally ignored the sale deeds of the
petitioners, in spite of the fact that its due
execution was found to be proved.

9.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussions, the writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. The orders of Consolidation
Officer dated 25.04.1986, Settlement
Officer Consolidation dated 17.07.1989
and Assistant Director of Consolidation
dated 08.03.1990 are set aside. The
Consolidation Officer shall give effect to
the sale deeds dated 04.09.1982 executed
by Ram Ratan in favour of the petitioners,
in the consolidation records.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7672 of 2013

Ram Kishun Singh @ Ram Krishna
Singh... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents
1614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhakar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri K.N. Mishra

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Section-9- Vesting of
land-petitioner seeking direction permitting
to execute the sale-on ground his father
was recorded as Bhumidhar-after his death
petitioner became owner-plot in question
recorded as Abad over which since 1906
Bank is running consolidation authoritiesno power to record the name of heir as
bhumidhar-on his background plea of bankabout settlement under section 9 of the
Act-proper-no mandamus can be issued.

Held: Para-13&14
13-It is also admitted case between the
parties that after abolition of the Zamindari,
no proceedings was ever initiated by the
father of the petitioner and even after the
death of the father of the petitioner in 1980,
the
petitioner
did
not
initiate
any
proceeding. The silence on the part of the
petitioner as well as his father for the more
than of 50 years cannot be raised and
adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction under
article 226.

14- The Court is of the view that property on
which the Bank stands was deemed to have
been settled in favour of the Bank by the
State under section 9 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.)

1. Petitioner by means of this writ
petition seeks a direction in the nature of
mandamus
directing
the
authorities
concerned to permit the petitioner to transfer
his land by registered sale deed in favour of
any person and further a direction is being
sought against the authorities not to interfere
from transferring the title of the property in
question in favour of any person.

2. The brief facts of the case is that
Arazi Nos.296, 297 and 869 Ka (Mi)
measuring 0.0216 and 0.684 Hectares
respectively was recorded in the name of the
ancestors of the petitioner in the revenue
records. After the death of the Tikori Singh,
father of the petitioner, the name of the
petitioner has been recorded as successor in
the revenue records.

3. Petitioner claims that he wants to
transfer the said property to third parties,
however, the said sale deed was objected
to by the Sub Registrar (Registration)
Kasia District Kushinagar by his order
dated 18.1.2013 stating therein that
District Cooperative Bank stands on the
said property and further the property has
been grossly under valued and there is a
specific
direction
of
the
District
Magistrate as well as Assistant Inspector
General (Registration) stating that sale in
respect of the property in question need
not be registered.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the State wherein it has been stated
that Deoria Kasia Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.
Branch Kasia was established in the year
1906 on the property in question and the
Bank is running on the plots recorded in the
name of Tikori Singh, father of the
petitioner.
On
1.11.1951,
the
Bank
constructed the building on the said property.
Tikori Singh who died in 1980 had never
objected to the said construction during his
life time and since 1980, the petitioner has
also not raised any objection. It is also stated
that after the death of Tikori Singh, the
petitioner managed to get his name recorded
in
the
revenue
record
during
the
consolidation proceedings, although the plots
in dispute were recorded as abadi land in the
revenue records and therefore were outside
the consolidation proceedings. Since the
petitioner was not in possession of the land in
question prior to the enforcement of U.P.Z.A
3 All] Ram Kishun Singh @ Ram Krishna Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1615
& L.R Act 1950, hence the property stood
settled with the Bank under section 9 of the
aforesaid mentioned Act.

5. Shri K.N.Mishra, Advocate has put
in appearance on behalf of respondent Bank
and it has been stated that the Bank was
established in 1906 and since then the Bank
is in possession of the said premises. The
premises also comprises of the houses and
quarters of the Bank officials. Extracts of
Khasra (field register) has also been filed
showing that on the said plot Cooperative
Bank is established. During consolidation
proceedings also the said property is
recorded as abadi. The petitioner fraudulently
managed to get the property recorded as
Bhumidari and since then the petitioner
claims to have title on the said property.

6. We have heard the counsel for the
parties.

7. The contention of the petitioner that
he has having title on the said property
cannot be accepted as the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate as to how he got
himself recorded as Bhumidar on the land
which is admittedly abadi. The Bank was
established in the year 1906 is admitted
between the parties. After abolition of the
Zamindari and publication of notification
under the Act, property in question vested
with the Bank in pursuance of Section 9 of
the U.P Z.A & L.R Act. Section 9 is
reproduced below:

"9. Private wells, trees in abadi and
buildings to be settled with the existing
owners or occupiers thereof - All wells,
trees in abadi and all buildings situate
within the limits of an estate belonging to
or held by an intermediary or tenant or
other person whether residing in the
village or not, shall continue to belong to
or be held by such intermediary tenant or
person, as the case may be,and the site of
the wells or the buildings within the area
appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be
settled with him by the State Government
on such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed."

8. It is not the case of the petitioner that
his father has ever raised any objection or
adjudicated the matter before any forum to
challenge the vesting of the property in
favour of the Bank. The father of the
petitioner died in the year 1980 and then, the
petitioner also did not raise any objection or
approached any forum to claim title to the
said property. It is during consolidation
proceedings, the petitioner fraudulently
managed to get his name entered as
Bhumidar of the said property. The said
entry is absolutely on the basis of fraud and
mis representation as Abadi land are not
included within consolidation proceedings
and are excluded from the said proceedings.
The Consolidation Officer themselves have
recorded the said property as abadi which is
recorded in Form CH 41. For more than 50
years after abolition of Zamindari, the Bank
is functioning on the said property and also
have constructed the premises. The petitioner
till date have not raised any objection nor his
father ever raised any objection knowing
very well that the property vested with the
Bank under section 9 of the Act. It is also not
the case of the petitioner that the Bank is a
tenant and his father ever received any rent
or the petitioner has been receiving any rent
since 1980. Nothing has also been brought
on the record to show that the building in
question was constructed by the father of the
petitioner.

9. Section 4 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act
deals with vesting of an estate in the State
whereas
Section
6
deals
with
1616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consequences of the vesting of an estate
in the State. Now reading the two sections
together three things emerges on coming
into the force of the Act. By virtue of
Section 4 the right, title and interest of all
intermediaries in every estate, including
Hats, Bazars and Melas, stood terminated.
Secondly, this whole bundle of interests
came to be vested in the State, free from
all encumbrances, the quality of the
vesting being absolute. Thirdly, one and
only one species of property in Hats,
Bazars and Melas was expressly excluded
from the total vesting of estates in the
State, viz. such as had been held on lands
to which Section 18(1)(a) to (c) applied.
Section 9 at this stage needs to be
examined as it provides for settlement
under the State, of some kinds of landed
interests in existing owners or occupiers.

10. Ordinarily property is held by a
person to whom it belongs i.e Owner. Such
person alone is entitled to the deeming
concept of settlement under Section 9 and
not any person holding on inferior right or
by imperfect adverse possession.

11. In Hari Shanker versus Narendra
Pratap Bahadur Singh and others AIR
1973 Allahabad 561 where Zamindarplaintiff's permitted the defendants to
construct building exclusively in their
ownerships on Zamindar's land. The rent
from the said property was being shared.
After abolition of the Zamindari, the
owner of the building started realising
rents from the shops by not paying the
share to the Zamindar. The Zamindar
filed suit for recovery of half of the share
on the ground that ownership of the site
on which the shop stood belonged to him.
This Court repelled the said argument on
the ground that the building belonged to
the person who constructed it and after
abolition of the Zamindari since the site
vested with the State, it could not be said
that the Zamindar held the said buildings.
The Court further stated that the word
'held' used in section 9 would mean
building belonging to a person lawfully
and it would not mean a tenant who has
an inferior right. The tenant hold it on
behalf of the owner and not on his own
right. Secondly a trespasser will also have
no right under section 9 as the trespasser
cannot be the owner vide Budhan Singh
versus Nabi Bux AIR 1962 Alld 43 which
was affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Budhan Singh versus Nabi Bux AIR 1970
SC 1880. In Budhan Singh (Supra) it was
held that a house built as Riyaya on the
land of Zamindar of the Village, with his
permission, belonged to the said person
and not to the Zamindar. Even in case the
person had left the premises for some
time and on his return the building was
taken possession by the Zamindar, it was
held that Zamindar being the trespasser
would not have a right under section 9
and the building would not be deemed to
be settled with the Zamindar because
'held' in section 9 means lawfully held and
not gained wrongful possession.

12. In the facts of the present case, it is
not the case of the petitioner that the Bank
was ever a tenant of his father or ancestors. It
is a specific case of the Bank that they had
constructed the building of the Bank and the
premises around the Bank and the banking
activity is being carried on since 1906.
Therefore, after abolition of the Zamindari,
in view of section 9, the building standing on
the site belonging to the father of the
petitioner shall be deemed to have been
settled in favour of the Bank.

13. It is also admitted case between
the parties that after abolition of the
3 All] Chandra Shekhar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1617
Zamindari, no proceedings was ever
initiated by the father of the petitioner and
even after the death of the father of the
petitioner in 1980, the petitioner did not
initiate any proceeding. The silence on the
part of the petitioner as well as his father
for the more than of 50 years cannot be
raised
and
adjudicated
in
a
writ
jurisdiction under article 226.

14. The Court is of the view that
property on which the Bank stands was
deemed to have been settled in favour of
the Bank by the State under section 9 of
U.P.Z.A & L.R Act.

15. For the reasons stated herein
above, this Court is not inclined to interfere
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The relief claimed for seeking
mandamus to enable the petitioner to transfer
the property to 3rd party cannot be accorded
as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate
before this Court that he has any title to the
said property.

16. The petition is devoid of merits
and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Misc. Singhle No. 7739 of 2013

Chandra Shekhar Tripathi... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Opportunity of hearing-person claiming
violation of principle of Natural Justiceto come forward and show if opportunity
given-what
would
be
plausible
explanation-entry in revenue recored by
playing fraud-FIR already lodged against
erring
revenue
officers-claim
of
petitioner to re-enter his name by
deleting
name
of
Gaon
sabha
in
pursuance of order passed by DDC 15
years ago-by exercising power of review
in
view
of
full
bench
decisionconsolidation authorities have no power
of review-held-claim rightly rejectedpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-9&10
9.

As
it
was
stark
forgery
and
manipulation, hence impugned orders
cannot be set aside on the ground of
denial of opportunity of hearing. In any
case in the writ petition petitioner has
thoroughly been heard and original
records have also been shown to his
learned counsel as well as to the court.

10. The argument that in respect of
abadi land, petitioner should not be
evicted is also not acceptable as from the
original records of 1359 Fasli, it is
evident that over the said land also name
of the petitioner's father was inserted
much later fraudulently.

Case Law discussed:
2005(98)RD
244;
2009(108)
RD
321;
2010(15) SCC 218; AIR 2000 SC 2783;
2007(4) SCC 54; 1997(15) LCD 921.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah
Khan, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.N. Tripatahi, learned
counsel for petitioner and Sri Y.M.S.
Yadav, learned standing counsel for
respondents.

2. Through this writ petition order
dated 03.08.2010 passed by Deputy D.M.,
Patti Pratapgarh in Case No.40 under