# Ram Lakhan v. J.D.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 128
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 4845 of 1985
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-lakhan-v-j-d-c-ors-47064
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(a) Land Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950:
Section 171, 172 - In present case, the
land in dispute had come to Smt.Mahadei
as widow of Ram Harak. After her
remarriage the property would revert back
tot he family of her husband Ram Harak
and would devolve upon the nearest
surviving heirs according to Section 171.
(Para 21)

'Ghar Bhaitha' marriage is no marriage in
the eyes of law. (Para 16)

The claim of the petitioner that him being
the illegitimate son of Mahadei is entitle for
the land in dispute of his mother is
misconceived and not tenable. The land in
dispute was coming from the husband of
Mahadei, namely Ram Harak and not from
the father of the petitioner i.e., Sarvadeen.
Therefore, even if the petitioner is treated to
be illegitimate son of Mahdei and Sarvadeen,
the petitioner cannot be treated to be
successor of the land which had come to his
mother from her legally wedded husband.
(Para 19 & 20)

Under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 the
Land Management Committee is entitled to
take possession of the land in dispute which
was wrongly and illegally recorded in the
name of the father of the petitioners after
the death of Mahadei under Section 171 of
the Act of 1950. (Para 23) (E-8)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Supra), has held that if sections 9, 9A and
11A are read together the only possible
conclusion is that even in these cases where
no objections has been filed, the Assistant
Consolidation Officer would make an
enquiry and he would refer the matter to
the Consolidation Officer and he shall
decide the same in accordance with the
procedure prescribed particularly in view of
Rule 25 A(2), Rule 26 and Rule 27 of the
rules framed under the U.P. Consolidation
Of Holdings Act. Therefore, once a dispute
was
recorded
by
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer and on objection
being filed the same was referred to the
Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to
the Consolidation Officer to decide the
same in accordance with law.

21. This Court, in the case of Shahid
Khan and Others Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Gautam Buddha Nagar
and Others (Supra), has held that there is a
bar also created during the consolidation
operations
itself
under
Section
11-A
therefore the petitioners will have to
establish that there was a cause of action
existing so as to allow them to file
objections under Section 9-A in the second
round of consolidation proceedings. In the
present case undisputedly the predecessor
in interest of petitioner at the relevant point
of time i.e. at the alleged time of earlier
round of consolidation proceeding was out
and it has also not been proved that any
notice was served to him. This plea was
also not taken before the Consolidation
Officer, therefore it could not be examined
so it can not be said that the objection filed
by the petitioner could not have been filed
or examined. During enquiry (Padtal) it
was recorded that the petitioners are
entitled for half share, therefore it has
rightly been examined and decided.

22. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bhagwat Sharan
(Dead through LRs.) Vs. Purshottam and
Others (Supra) relied by learned counsel
for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 is in
regard to the Hindu undivided family
which is not applicable on the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

23. In view of above, this Court is of
the considered view that the impugned
Judgment and order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and liable to be quashed.

24. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed. The
impugned
order
dated
27.11.2004 passed by A.D.M. Executive /
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad
in Revision No.986 of 165 contained in
annexure no.1 to the writ petition is hereby
quashed. No order as to costs.

25. The consequences shall follow
accordingly as per law.
----------
(2021)07ILR A128
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 4845 of 1985

Ram Lakhan ...Petitioner
Versus
J.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
A.S.
Chaudhary,
Arun
Kumar
Yadav,
Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.P. Tiwari
7 All. Ram Lakhan Vs. J.D.C. & Ors.
129
(a) Land Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950:
Section 171, 172 - In present case, the
land in dispute had come to Smt.Mahadei
as widow of Ram Harak. After her
remarriage the property would revert back
tot he family of her husband Ram Harak
and would devolve upon the nearest
surviving heirs according to Section 171.
(Para 21)

'Ghar Bhaitha' marriage is no marriage in
the eyes of law. (Para 16)

The claim of the petitioner that him being
the illegitimate son of Mahadei is entitle for
the land in dispute of his mother is
misconceived and not tenable. The land in
dispute was coming from the husband of
Mahadei, namely Ram Harak and not from
the father of the petitioner i.e., Sarvadeen.
Therefore, even if the petitioner is treated to
be illegitimate son of Mahdei and Sarvadeen,
the petitioner cannot be treated to be
successor of the land which had come to his
mother from her legally wedded husband.
(Para 19 & 20)

Under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 the
Land Management Committee is entitled to
take possession of the land in dispute which
was wrongly and illegally recorded in the
name of the father of the petitioners after
the death of Mahadei under Section 171 of
the Act of 1950. (Para 23) (E-8)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Hari
Bans
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation & or. 2014 (32) LCD 2629

2. Jagdamba Singh & ors. Vs Deputy
Director of Consolidation & ors. 1984 (2)
LCD 398

3. Singhai Ajit Kumar Vs Ujayar Singh AIR
1961 2 SC 1334

4. Santi Deb Berma Vs Kanchan Prava Devi
1991 Supp (2) SCC 616 (followed)
5. Dina Nath Verma & ors.Vs Gokaran & ors.
2003 (94) RD 323 (followed)

6. Ramji Dixit & ors. Vs Bhrigunath & ors. AIR
1965 Allahabad 1 (V 52 C 1)

7. Dheeraj& anr. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Gautam Budh Nagar & ors. 2009
(107) RD 695

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P.
Tiwari, learned counsel for the private
respondents. Chief Standing Counsel has
accepted notice on behalf of opposite party
no.1.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the judgement and order
dated 29.08.1985 passed by the opposite
party
no.1
i.e.
Joint
Director
of
Consolidation,
Sultanpur(here-in-after
referred as JDC).

3. The dispute relates to Plots of Gata
No.47, situated in Village-Tihra, ParganaBarosa,Tehsil and District-Sultanpur, which
was recorded in the names of the petitionerRam Lakhan(now the deceased) and Ram
Deen, son of Budhai, and uncle of the
petitioner in the basic year. A joint
objection dated 23.12.1978 was filed by
Smt.Jhabra, the opposite party no.2(now
deceased) and Ram Kishun, son of Budhai
(now deceased), claiming co-tenancy in the
disputed gata. The Consolidation Officer,
by means of the order dated 24.11.1980,
rejected the claim of Ram Kishun and Har
Deen and determined the share of the
petitioner as 2/3rd and the opposite party
no.2 as 1/3rd in Gata No.47. Two appeals,
bearing no. 790(Ram Lakhan versus Smt.
Jhabra and others) and 371(Ram Kisun
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
versus Ram Lakhan and others), were filed
against the order dated 24.11.1980 under
Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred
as the Act of 1953). The appeals were
dismissed by means of the order dated
21.05.1981. Hence two revisions, bearing
no.1058(Ram kishun versus Ram Lakhan)
and 1059(Ram Lakhan versus Smt. Jhabra),
under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 were
filed. The revision of the opposite party
no.2 was allowed and the revision of the
petitioner was dismissed by means of the
order dated 29.08.1985 and the order
passed
by
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation and Consolidation Officer
have been amended accordingly and share
of the opposite party no.2 has been
determined as 2/3rd and share of the
petitioner as 1/3rd in the land in dispute.
Hence, the present writ petition was filed.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner was that the opposite party
no.2 had set up the pedigree in the
objection, in which the land in dispute was
said to have been acquired by Bankey, and
thereafter, the name of his three sons Jokhu,
Budhai and Ghoghar were jointly recorded.
Subsequently,
by
amendment
in
the
objection, added 'alias Paltan' with Bankey
and 'alias Golan' with Ghoghar, as land in
dispute was recorded in the name of Paltan
and thereafter in the name of Jokhu son of
Paltan. Therefore, merely by adding alias
Paltan, the opposite party no.2 does not get
right without any proof that Bankey and
Paltan were one and the same person, and
similarly, Ghoghar and Golan. Ram Harakh
son of Jokhu, Budhai son of Bankey and
Ghoghar son of Bankey died prior to
Jokhu. On the death of Jokhu, Ram Din,
Sarva Din and Ram Kishun succeeded in
equal share. The objection was filed by the
petitioner claiming that the name of Ram
Din was wrongly recorded as he never
remained in possession. The father of the
petitioner;Sarvadeen had separated from
his family/brothers and lived with Mahdei,
wife of Ram Harakh, son of Jokhu as Ghar
Baitha. Some of the plots were acquired by
Paltan, who was grand father of Ram
Harak. Pedigree given by the petitioner was
different, in which Paltan was the original
tenant. Thereafter, the land devolved on
Jokhu his son, and thereafter, on Mahdei.
Thereafter it was settled with Sarvadeen by
the Zamindar. As such, he was the sole
tenant. The opposite party no.2 was
claiming on the basis of Will, which was
not proved. The period and rent of the land
in dispute was changed and it was not in
the same form. Since the land in dispute
was acquired by Paltan which had come to
the widow of Ram Harakh i.e. Smt.
Mahdei, with whom the father of the
petitioner had started living. He got the
land of Mahdei. Therefore, the petitioner is
only entitled to succeed even if the
petitioner is treated to be illegitimate child
of his father and Smt. Mahdei. Lastly, he
had submitted that the learned JDC,
without setting aside the findings, recorded
by the Consolidation Officer and the SOC,
has allowed the revision of the opposite
party no.2 and rejected the revision of the
petitioner ,which could not have been done,
as there was concurrent findings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on 2014(32) LCD 2629; Hari
Bans
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and others, 1984(2) LCD
398; Jagdamba Singh and others Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others and AIR 1961 2 SC 1334; Singhai
Ajit Kumar versus Ujayar Singh.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 submitted that after
7 All. Ram Lakhan Vs. J.D.C. & Ors.
131
death of Bankey @ Paltan, the land in
dispute came jointly to his sons, Jokhu,
Budhai and Ghoghar @ Golan. After death
of Jokhu, his share was devolved on Ram
Harak, and after death of Budhai, his share
devolved to his five sons, namely, Ram
Deen, Sarvadeen, Ram Kishun, Panchu and
Hardeen.
Panchu
died
issueless
and
Hardeen was residing in some other village.
As such, Ram Deen, Sarva Deen and Ram
Kishun became the co-tenant in equal
shares, as the share of Panchu was divided
in his three brothers and since Hardeen was
residing in some other village, he had no
share. Ramdeen, father of the opposite
party no.2, had executed a Will in favour of
the opposite party no.2 on 16.08.1989 and
Ram Kishun had also executed a Will in
favour of the opposite party no.2 on
05.05.1978. Therefore, the opposite party
no.2 is entitled for 2/3rd share and the
petitioner, for the share of Sarvadeen. As
such, there is no illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order. Therefore, the writ
petition is misconceived and liable to be
dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

8. The dispute relates to Plots of Gata
No. 47. During consolidation proceedings,
two objections were filed. The opposite
party no.2 had claimed on the basis of Will
executed by Ram Deen and Ram Kishun
and set up the following pedigree:-

Bankey(alias
Paltan)___________________

I

I

I
Jokhu
 Budhai Ghoghar

I

 I
Ram
Harakh(died
issueless)
___________________________________
I

I

 I
Ram Deen
Sarva Deen Ram Kishun

I

 I

Smt. Jhabra Ram Lakhan(son)

9. The petitioner had filed the
objections, claiming the land in dispute, on
the ground that his father had started living
with Mahdei, wife of Ram Harak and he
was their son. Therefore, the land which
had come to Mahadei as widow of Ram
Harak, should have been devolved on the
petitioner, the only legal heir. He set up the
following pedigree:-

Paltan

 I

Jokhu

 I

Ram Harakh=Mahdei

10. The pedigree was amended
subsequently by the opposite party no.2 on
the
application
allowed
by
the
Consolidatoin officer and 'alias Paltan' with
Bankey and 'alias Golan' with Ghoghar was
added. The parties adduced their evidence
before the Consolidation officer. On behalf
of the objector Hardeen, his son Parasnath
was examined. He stated in his evidence
that Hardeen had 5 brothers, namely,
Sarvadeen, Hardeen, Ram Deen, Ram
Kishun and Panchu. Name of the father of
the Hardeen was Budhai, who had three
brothers, namely, Jokhu, Budhai and Golan.
Name of their father was Paltan. Ram
Harak was the son of Jokhu. The petitioner
Ram Lakhan is the son of Sarvadeen.
Among the five brothers Sarvadeen died at
first. Thereafter, Panchu died. He also
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated that the land in dispute was made by
Paltan. In his sons, Jokhu was the eldest, so
after death of Paltan, the land in dispute
was rcorded in the name of Jokhu as Karta
of the family.

11. On behalf of the opposite party
no.2, her husband Ram Nihore appeared in
evidence. He gave the following pedigree:-

Paltan@
Bankey_______________________

I

I

 I

Jokhu Golan@Ghoghar Budhai

I

I

 I

Ram I I

Harakh
 I

 I
_______________________ I
I I I I
Panchu Sarva Deen Har Deen I

 ____________________
 I I
 Ram Deen Ram Kishun

He also stated that the land in
dispute was made by Paltan, in which Ram
Deen, Sarva Deen and Ram Kishun had
1/3rd share each. Hardeen had no share.
Panchu had died issueless.

12. On behalf of the petitioner, the
petitioner himself and Ram Sahay appeared
in evidence. The petitioner stated that he
had got the land in dispute from his father
Sarvadeen. Jokhu was not from his family,
and the name of the son of Jokhu was Ram
Harak. Widow of Ram Harak was Mahdei.
His father had started living with Mahdei as
Ghar baitha. His father had got all the land
and property of Ram Harak. The name of
the father of the Jokhu was Paltan. It was
also stated that the petitioner was born from
his father and Mahdei. The name of the
father of Jokhu is not Bankey. The other
witness Ram Sahay also stated that Sarva
Deen had gone to Mahdei as Ghar Baitha
and supported the evidence of the petitioner
and stated that the petitioner is in exclusive
possession of the land in dispute and denied
the possession of Hardeen, Ram Kishun
etc. He also supported the pedigree of
Paltan given by the petitioner and further
stated that Paltan was not called as Bankey.

13. The Consolidation Officer after
considering the evidence, rejected the
objections of Ram Kishun and Hardeen,
and allowed the objections of opposite
party no.2, Smt. Jhabra and determined his
share as 1/3rd on the basis of Will executed
by Ram Deen in her favour and 2/3rd in the
name of Ram Lakhan. The SOC dismissed
the appeals.

14. Initially, the opposite party no.2
and the other objectors, who subsequently
left the contest claimed the land in dispute
on the basis of pedigree which started from
Bankey, but after filing of the objection, the
alias was added by way of amendment with
Bankey but it has not been proved by any
cogent evidence that Bankey and Paltan
were one and the same person and it was
being recorded as 'alias Paltan' or 'Paltan
alias Bankey' in revenue records. The
Consolidation Officer has recorded a
categorical finding that alias is not recorded
alongwith Paltan in the revenue records and
the objectors i.e. opposite party no.2 and
others had also not stated initially Bankey
alias Paltan, but subsequently, Paltan was
got
added
by
way
of
amendment.
Accordingly, he recorded a finding that
Jokhu was not from the family of the
pedigree given by the objectors. The
revisional authority also recorded that in
the revenue records, there was no entry in
the name of Bankey alias Paltan. The entry
was in the name of Jokhan son of Paltan in
second
settlement,
and
in
the
first
settlement the name of the Paltan was
7 All. Ram Lakhan Vs. J.D.C. & Ors.
133
recorded. The land in dispute was also
never recorded in the name of Ghoghar @
Golan.

15. In view of above, it is not in
dispute that the land in dispute was made
by Paltan. Thereafter, it came to Jokhu then
to Ram Harak and thereafter to his widow
Mahdei. Since father of the petitioner Sarva
Deen had started living with Mahdei,
widow of Ram Harak,it was recorded in the
name of the petitioner. The objection was
filed. On coming to know that it was
initially recorded in the name of paltan,
alias was added with Bankey by way of
amendment in the objection, but it could
not be proved that Bankey and Paltan were
one and the same person. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the pedigrees
given by the opposite party no.2 and the
petitioner were different and had no
concern with the family of each other
except that the father of the petitioner had
started living with the widow of Ram
Harak namely Mahdei.

16. Now, the question arises as to
whether the property which had come to
Mahdei, who was widow of Ram Harak,
could have come to the petitioner, who was
son of Mehdei and Sarva Deen, who had
started living with Mahdei as Ghar Baitha.
This Court is of the view that the land
which has devolved to Mahdei being
widow of Ram Harak, could not have
devolved on the petitioner. Firstly, because
as per Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act 1950 when a bhumidhar or asami, who
has after the date of vesting, inherited an
interest in any holding as a widow or
widow of a male lineal descendant dies,
marries, abandons or surrenders such
holding, or part thereof, the holding or the
part shall devolve upon the nearest
surviving heir (such heir being ascertained
in accordance with the provisions of
Section 171) of the last male bhumidhar or
asami. Therefore, on her re-marriage or
death, land would go back to the family of
her husband and would devolve according
to Section 171.Therefore the land would
revert
back
after
death
of
Mahdei.
Secondly,
the
Ghar
Baitha
marriage
claimed by the petitioner, is no marriage in
the eyes of law and any right will not
accrue to the father of the petitioner and/or
the petitioner on the basis of the alleged
claim.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of Santi Deb Berma Versus Kanchan
Prava Devi; 1991 Supp (2) SCC 616, held
that living together as husband and wife
cannot in any way serve as proof of a valid
marriage as per the Act, especially when
there is no plea that the marriage was
solemnized
in
accordance
with
the
customary rites and usage, which do not
include 'Saptpadi'.

18. This Court in the case of Dina
Nath Verma and others Versus Gokaran
and others;2003(94) RD 323 did not find
"Ghar Baitha" as legal marriage. The
relevant paragraphs 11 to 13 are extracted
below:-

"11. Now coming to the other
questions firstly, I consider whether Smt.
Lakhraji re-married to Phagoo. Oral
evidence has been produced regarding remarriage. However, the same does not
appear to convincting. There is absolutely
no evidence to show that the marriage took
place. On the other hand, only to is alleged
that it was "Ghar Baitha"; that sagai took
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
place and thereafter Smt. Lakhraji and
Phagoo started living as husband and wife.
It does not show that it was a legal
marriage. It is not alleged in the plaint that
"sapta-pati" took place and therefore, this
marriage cannot be recognised and Smt.
Lakhraji cannot be divested from the
property.

12. In the present case, it is
admitted position that the name of Smt.
Lakhraji was recorded over the land on
which dispute houses exist in CH Form No.
23. Smt. Lakhraji was declared as exclusive
owner of the land and chack was carved
out in her name. Smt. Yashoda Devi and
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not raised any
objection in the consolidation proceedings.
They have not stated that Smt. Lakhraji has
been divested from the land because she
had re-married with Phagoo. Therefore, the
allegations made in the suit is only a after
thought and the allegation that Smt.
Lakhraji
has
re-married
cannot
be
accepted.

13. The Apex Court in the case of
Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh [ A.I.R. 1994
SCC 135.] , has held that where customary
marriage is pleaded but the custom is not
pleaded and there is no evidence of the
nature of the ceremonies performed in
marriage in such a case from the evidence
that the parties were living together as
husband and wife does not itself show that
it would confer status of husband and
wife."

19. The claim of the petitioner that, at
the most, he can be said to be an
illegitimate son of Mahdei, therefore even
if the father of the petitioner had not
married to Mahdei, he is entitled for the
land in dispute of his mother, is also
misconceived
and
not
tenable.
The
succession could have been made in
accordance with Section 171 of the Act
1950, which has come to the widow from
her husband under Section 172 after she remarried or on her death after reversion of
property to the family of her husband.

20. In the present case, the land in
dispute was coming from the husband of
Mahdei, namely Ram Harak and not from
the father of the petitioner i.e. Sarvadeen.
Therefore, even if the petitioner is treated
to be illegitimate son of Mahdei and
Sarvadeen, the petitioner cannot be treated
to be successor of the land which had come
to his mother from her legally wedded
husband. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for any benefit of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Singhai
Ajit
Kumar
versus
Ujayar
Singh(supra), in which, the question which
was considered is, whether the illegitimate
son of Sudra vis-a-vis self acquired
property, after having succeeded to a half
share of his putative father's estate, will be
entitled to succeed to the other half share,
got by the widow, after the succession
opened out to his putative father on the
death of the said widow. Therefore, even if
the petitioner is treated to be illegitimate
son of Mahdei and Sarvadeen, he is not
entitled for the land, which had come from
her husband. However, if the land in
dispute would have been coming from the
family of his father i.e. Sarvadeen, then
only the petitioner could have got right
according to his share.

21. In the present case, admittedly the
land in dispute had come to Smt. Mahdei as
widow of Ram Harak; her husband.
Therefore, after her death the property
would revert back to the family of her
husband Ram Harak and devolve upon the
nearest surviving heirs according to Section
171. The Full Bench, in the case of Ramji
Dixit and another Versus Bhrigunath and
7 All. Ram Lakhan Vs. J.D.C. & Ors.
135
others;AIR 1965 Allahabad 1(V 52 C 1),
has held that it is worthy to note that on the
death of a female bhumidhar succession to
the holding goes not to her heirs but to the
"nearest surviving heir of the last male
bhumidhar". In other words it is the heirs of
the last male-holder and not that of the
deceased female bhumidhar who succeed to
the holding. This would again indicate that
her interest in the holding ends with her
death.

22. The revisional authority without any
pleadings and evidence and setting aside the
findings recorded by the Consolidation
Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation,
recorded a finding that the name of Sarva
Deen was recorded in place of Jokhu and on
the basis of presumption held that it does not
seem that the same was recorded in the name
of Sarva Deen after Mahdei and on the basis
of
substitution.
Therefore
the
finding
recorded by the learned revisional authority is
not sustainable in the eyes of law. The
revisional court could not have recorded its
own finding without setting aside the finding
recorded by the courts below. The law on the
issue is settled, as it has been held by this
Court in the case of Hari Bans versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others; 2014(32) LCD 2629.

23. Now the question arises as to who is
entitled for the portion of land in dispute
which was recorded in the name of father of
the petitioners after death of Mahdei, widow
of Ram Harak. Since there was no claimant
and the remaining portion of the land in
dispute has been recorded in the name of the
opposite party no.2 on the basis of Will
executed by Ram Deen and Ram Kishun,
therefore the interest in the land in dispute
stands extinguished on the death of Mahdei
under Section 189 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and
under Section 194, the Land Management
Committee is entitled to take possession of
the land in dispute which was wrongly and
illegally recorded in the name of the father of
the petitioners after the death of Mahdei
under Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

24. In view of above, the court's below
have dealt with the case of petitioner in an
illegal manner without application of mind
because under Section 11-C of the Act of
1953 it was the duty of the Consolidation
Court's to see that if any land vests in State
Govt. or Gaon Sabha or any local body or
authority he may record in his name even if
any objection has not been filed, but they
have failed to do so. This Court in the case of
Dheeraj
and
Another
versus
Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Gautam Budh
Nagar and Others; 2009(107) RD 695, has
held that under Section 11-C of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act it is provided
that if C.O., S.O.C., D.D.C. while hearing a
case comes to the conclusion that any land
vests in the State Government or Gaon Sabha
then it shall be recorded in the name of State
or Gaon Sabha even though no objection,
appeal or revision has been filed by State or
Gaon Sabha.

25. In view of above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned
judgment and order is not sustainable to the
extent of 1/3rd share of the petitioners
determined in the land in dispute and the
same is liable to be quashed.

26. The impugned judgment and order
dated 29.08.1985 is accordingly quashed to
the extent it determines the share of
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner as 1/3 rd in the land in dispute and
the order passed in favour of respondent no.2
is upheld. Accordingly the orders passed by
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
and
Consolidation Officer also stand quashed to
the extent of 1/3rd share of petitioner. The
said land shall be recorded in the name of
concerned Land Management Committee.
The Land Management Committee shall take
possession of the said land. The petitioner is
directed to vacate the land in question.

27. With the aforesaid, the writ petition
is disposed of. The Joint Director of
Consolidation , Sultanpur shall pass the
consequential order and communicate to the
concerned Land Management Committee for
further action and submit a compliance report
to this Court within four months. No order as
to costs.

28. A copy of this order shall be
communicated to the Joint Director of
Consolidation, Sultanpur forthwith.
----------
(2021)07ILR A136
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Consolidation No. 12180 of 2021

Gulam Anwar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C./Upper Ziladhikari Judicial, Amethi
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Deomani Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
(a)
Consolidation
Proceedings
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9-A, 11, 12 - The decision in
proceedings
under
Section
9-A
is
appealable
and
the
decision
in
proceedings under Section 12 also being a
decision on title does not leave the
aggrieved party without the statutory
remedy of appeal. (Para 15).

On reading Section 9-A(1) it is inferred that the
Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, where the
objections in respect of claims to land or
partition of joint holdings are files, after hearing
the concerned parties and where objections are
not filed after making necessary inquiry, settle
the disputes, correct the mistakes and make
partition by conciliation and pass necessary
orders. If conciliation does not takes place the
Assistant Consolidation Officer shall forward
those cases. It is evident from Section 11 that
any party to the proceedings under Section 9-A
aggrieved by an order of the Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
or
the
Consolidation
Officer, may file an appeal before the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation. (Para 13)

(b) Words & Phrases - Mutatis Mutandis -
It mean that the matter or things are
generally the same, but to be altered
when necessary, as to names, offices and
the like. The rules which are adopted
make principles embodied in the rule
applicable and not the details pertaining
to particular authority or things of that
nature. (Para 11)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Smt. Lal Dei (D) through L.Rs. & ors. Vs
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi &
ors. 2005 (2) AWC 1097

2. Devesh Singh & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Banda & ors. 2005 (3) AWC 2663

3. Ashok Service Centre Vs St. of Orissa (1983)
2 SCC 82

4. Prahlad Sharma Vs St.of U.P. & ors. (2004) 4
SCC 113