# Sita Ram v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 869
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1830 of 1973
- **Bench:** Janardan Sahai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sita-ram-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-jaunpur-and-others-40220
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-S. 3
(5)- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1951-S.143-'Land'-Meaning
of -Inference drawn by D.D.C. that land
in question was abadi on the basis of
statement of Counsel that there was
pucca well, Sehan etc.- held, illegal.

Held-Para 8

From the facts stated above it is clear
that the only basis on which an inference
was drawn by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation that the land in question
was abadi was a statement made by the
learned counsel for the respondents that
there was pucca well, charani and sehan.
I have considered the definition of 'land'
in the aforesaid section and it does not
appear that the disputed plot would
cease to be land within the meaning of
Section 3 (5) of the Act.
Case law:
1979 R.D. 78

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sita Ram V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others
869
of
Consolidation
in
deciding
both
questions of condonation of delay as well
as on merit. The matter having only been
remanded to Consolidation Officer, the
petitioner will have opportunity to lead
his evidence and will have his say on
merits. The impugned orders do not call
for any interference in exercise of
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and
is summarily rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JANARDAN SAHAI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1830 of 1973

Sita Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Jaunpur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri S.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sankatha Rai
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-S. 3
(5)- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1951-S.143-'Land'-Meaning
of -Inference drawn by D.D.C. that land
in question was abadi on the basis of
statement of Counsel that there was
pucca well, Sehan etc.- held, illegal.

Held-Para 8

From the facts stated above it is clear
that the only basis on which an inference
was drawn by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation that the land in question
was abadi was a statement made by the
learned counsel for the respondents that
there was pucca well, charani and sehan.
I have considered the definition of 'land'
in the aforesaid section and it does not
appear that the disputed plot would
cease to be land within the meaning of
Section 3 (5) of the Act.
Case law:
1979 R.D. 78

(Delivered by Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. In the basic year the name of the
petitioner was recorded over the disputed
plots. Objections were filed by the
respondents Ram Nath and others before
the Consolidation Officer claiming the
sole sirdari right as heirs of Buddhu. The
case of the respondents was that Buddhu
was recorded over the land in dispute
since the year 1309 fasali and the name of
Ambar son of Buddhu continued to be
recorded in 1333 fasali and it was for the
first time in 1349 fasali that the name of
Puddhu
the
father's
father
of
the
petitioner was recorded. The respondents
allege that the name of Puddu from the
branch of the petitioner was wrongly
recorded. Oral evidence was led by both
the parties. The Consolidation Officer by
order
dated
25.6.1970
allowed
the
objection of the contesting respondent and
directed that the entry of the name of Sita
Ram, the petitioner be expunged. On
appeal filed by Sita Ram the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation reversed the
decision. The Settlement Officer of
Consolidation relied upon the fact that
consistently
from
1358
fasali
the
petitioner was recorded over the land in
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
dispute. He also placed reliance upon
Khasra entries of 1361 to 1370 fasali. The
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
recorded the finding that Ram Nath and
others could not establish their possession
over the disputed plots. On revision filed
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation by Ram Nath and others
the Deputy Director of Consolidation set
aside the findings of the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation. He recorded the
finding that for the first time in 1349
fasali the name of Puddhu came to be
recorded and before 1349 fasali the
entries were in favour of the branch of the
respondents. He found it established that
the respondents were in possession. In
order to arrive at that finding the Deputy
Director of Consolidation relied upon an
admission made by Sita Ram that he has
nothing to do with the land of Buddhu. He
also relied upon the fact that the petitioner
was a resident of village Dharamdaspur
whereas the land in dispute is situate in
village Paltupur. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation held that the name of
Puddhu the grand father of the petitioner
was recorded on account of confusion
arising out of similarly of his name with
that of Buddhu. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation also found that there was
abadi upon the disputed land. For arriving
at that finding he placed reliance upon the
argument
of
the
counsel
of
the
respondents Ram Nath that the land in
question forms part of their Sahan and
there exists charani and pucca well
thereupon and it is a form of abadi. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation directed
therefore that the name of Sita Ram be
expunged and the land in dispute be
recorded as abadi.

3. Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the
finding of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation
on
the
question
of
possession is perverse and has been
arrived
at
without
considering
the
materials that was filed by the petitioner
and relied upon by the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation. He referred to the
Khasra entries of 1361 to 1370 fasali and
also upon the entry of 1358 and 1349
fasali. It was submitted by Sri Singh that
the oral evidence of the parties has not
been considered by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation at all nor he has
considered the irrigation receipts filed by
the petitioner. Having considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the
parties it does appear that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation failed to take
into account the irrigation receipts and
effect of long standing Khasra entries
1358 to 1370 fasali. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation has also relied upon the
admission made by the petitioner that he
had nothing to do with the land of
Buddhu. It is well settled that an
admission in order to bind a party must be
unequivocal. A statement that a party has
nothing to do with the land of the other
party
can
not
be
an
unequivocal
admission, that the disputed land belongs
to the other party. Such a statement is not
the admission of the claim of title of the
other party. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation has also not considered the
oral evidence. In the circumstances the
finding on possession recorded by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation can not
be sustained as it is vitiated for nonconsideration of the materials on the
record.

4. With regard to the existence of
abadi a submission was made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
once
the
Deputy
Director
of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sita Ram V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others
871
Consolidation recorded the finding that it
was abadi he should have laid his hands
off the case and should have directed the
maintenance of the basic year entry.
Reliance was placed upon 1979 R.D. 78,
Kamla Shanker and others Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and others in
support of this proposition that where the
Consolidation Authority finds after spot
inspection that there was abadi it should
not decide the question of title but ought
to direct the entry to that effect in Column
24 of C.H. Form No. 2-A.

5. It appears that the finding, which
the Deputy Director of Consolidation has
recorded that the land in question is abadi
is not based upon spot inspection. The
findings have been arrived at only on the
basis of the statement made by the learned
counsel of RamNath the respondent that
there was a pucca well, charani and sehan
upon the land in dispute. To determine
whether these items are land it is
necessary to examine the definition of
'land' under Section 3 (5) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act which is
much wider than its definition in Section
3 (14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act. It is extracted
below;

"5" Land means land held or
occupied for purposes connected with
agriculture,
horticulture
and
animal
husbandry (including pisciculture and
poultry farming) and includes-
(i) the site, being part of a holding, of a
house or other similar structure; and
(ii) trees, wells and other improvements
existing on the plots forming the holding."

6. This definition indicates that a
'well' as well as site of a house is covered
within the definition of 'land'. None of the
items referred to by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation can be excluded from
this wides definition of land and on the
basis of these items no inference could
have been drawn that the property was
abadi.

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents also placed reliance upon
Section 142 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act and
submitted that under the said provision it
was open to a Bhumidhar to build a house
and unless there was a declaration under
Section 143 of the Act the land could not
be treated as 'abadi'. Reliance is also
placed upon the decision in 1983
Allahabad Law Journal 388 Indrajeet
Singh Vs. Sardar Arjun Singh and others
wherein it has been held that the
Consolidation Authorities are entitled to
decide the question of title in respect of
land and even if constructions are raised
unless a declaration under section 143
Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms
Act is obtained it would not cease to be
land and would continue to be part of the
holding of a tenure holder and recorded as
'abadi shamil jot' and it would be open to
the Consolidation courts to decide the
title. While Section 142 of the Zamindari
Abolition of Land Reforms Act allows a
bhumidar to use his land for any purpose
it allows a sirdar to use it for purposes
connected with agriculture and not for any
purpose. A declaration under section 143
can be made only in respect of bhumidari
and not sirdari land. If a sirdar uses his
land for any purpose other than that
permitted under Section 142 his interest
would be extinguished under Section 190
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act as it then stood. We are here
concerned with a khata, which was then a
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
sirdari khata. The decision cited is
therefore distinguishable.

8. From the facts stated above it is
clear that the only basis on which an
inference was drawn by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation that the land in
question was abadi was a statement made
by the learned counsel for the respondents
that there was pucca well, charani and
sehan. I have considered the definition of
'land' in the aforesaid section and it does
not appear that the disputed plot would
cease to be land within the meaning of
Section 3 (5) of the Act.

9. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed and the orders of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur dated
29.6.1971 and 30.1.1973 are quashed. The
case is sent back to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Jaunpur who is directed to
consider the question of title and
possession afresh in the light of the
observations made above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30848 of 2001

Saleem Akhtar Khan

...Petitioner
Versus
Vice
Chancellor,
Aligarh
Muslim
University Aligarh and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ch. N.A. Khan
Sri S.A. Khan (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dilip Gupta
Sri Arun Pundir
Sri Arun Kumar
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226 Service
Law Promotion -The Post of Assistant
(Administration) in various department
of A.M.U. -D.P.C. not recommendedsome person having less qualification
and junior promoted-once participated
can not be allowed to challenge the
validity.

Held Merely because not selected can
not turn around and challenge the
selection process after participation -no
malice established-petition dismissed.

Held- Para 15

Admittedly, the petitioner has not been
found fit by the Selection Committee.
The petitioner had participated in the
written test and had also appeared
before the D.P.C., but his name was not
recommended by the D.P.C. and has
therefore, not been promoted. Merely
because he was not selected, he cannot
turn around and challenge the selection
process
after
participation
in
the
selection. No malice could be established
against the members of the Selection
Committee.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard the petitioner in person and
the Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the
office memo dated 21.07.2001, by which
the departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC)
has
not
recommended
the
petitioner and has recommended 39 other
persons for appointment as Assistant
(Administration) in various Departments
of the University.