# Smt. Nandini Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 818
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-14
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 22489 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nandini-devi-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-ayodhya-ors-51666
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,
1950
-
Section
171
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9-A, 9-B, 11, 12 & 48 - Rule 25-A
of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules -

Succession - Unregistered Will - Validity of
Compromise - Dispute over Land Title

The petitioner challenged the orders dated
05.09.2016 (Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
Ayodhya) and 05.04.2019 (Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Ayodhya), which rejected her
claim over disputed land (Gata No. 76, new No.
66) based on an unregistered Will dated
03.12.1991
and
a
compromise
dated
24.02.1992. The land was originally recorded in
the name of Bhagwan Bux Singh, and after his
death on 04.12.1991, his widow Rajeshwari
Devi's name was recorded under Section 171 of
the 1950 Act. The petitioner, Nandini Devi,
daughter of Bhagwan Bux Singh, claimed rights
based on the Will and a compromise during
consolidation
proceedings.
Held:
The
unregistered Will was not proved as per law
before the authorities under the 1953 Act,
rendering the petitioner's claim baseless. The
compromise was invalid as it violated Rule 25-A
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
lacking signatures of Consolidation Committee
members and conferring rights not recognized
by statute. Under Section 171(2) of the 1950
Act, Rajeshwari Devi, as the widow, was the
sole legal heir, and the petitioner, a married
daughter, had no statutory right during her
mother's lifetime. The orders of the SOC and
DDC were upheld, and the petition was
dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,974 of 48,169. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39974 for what follows._

818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having area of equal valuation, as far as
possible, nearer/in the vicinity to his
remaining chak. It is made clear that for
better compliance of this condition No. 2,
learned DDC would revisit his reference
order dated 29.9.2023, partly quash by the
order of date, and pass fresh order so as to
do complete justice in favour of respondent
No. 5, who is running from pillar to post
since last several years.

(iv) Having completed the short
area having valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa in
the chak of respondent No. 5, learned DDC
shall make all sincere endeavour to
demarcate the said allotted land in chak No.
80 and deliver the possession thereof to
respondent
no.5
after
removing
obstruction/hindrance, if any, over there.
He can take police protection/help as well
for the purpose, if required.

(v) The DDC shall make a sincere
endeavour to decide the revision, in
accordance
with
law,
expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order and, thereafter, ensure
the demarcation and delivery of possession
thereof as directed above within a period of
two months.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 818
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ B No. 22489 of 2019

Smt. Nandini Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Saryu Prasad Tiwari, U.S. Sahai (Amicus)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., IM Pandey, Krishna Kumar Dubey

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,
1950
-
Section
171
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9-A, 9-B, 11, 12 & 48 - Rule 25-A
of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules -

Succession - Unregistered Will - Validity of
Compromise - Dispute over Land Title

The petitioner challenged the orders dated
05.09.2016 (Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
Ayodhya) and 05.04.2019 (Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Ayodhya), which rejected her
claim over disputed land (Gata No. 76, new No.
66) based on an unregistered Will dated
03.12.1991
and
a
compromise
dated
24.02.1992. The land was originally recorded in
the name of Bhagwan Bux Singh, and after his
death on 04.12.1991, his widow Rajeshwari
Devi's name was recorded under Section 171 of
the 1950 Act. The petitioner, Nandini Devi,
daughter of Bhagwan Bux Singh, claimed rights
based on the Will and a compromise during
consolidation
proceedings.
Held:
The
unregistered Will was not proved as per law
before the authorities under the 1953 Act,
rendering the petitioner's claim baseless. The
compromise was invalid as it violated Rule 25-A
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
lacking signatures of Consolidation Committee
members and conferring rights not recognized
by statute. Under Section 171(2) of the 1950
Act, Rajeshwari Devi, as the widow, was the
sole legal heir, and the petitioner, a married
daughter, had no statutory right during her
mother's lifetime. The orders of the SOC and
DDC were upheld, and the petition was
dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

1.
Shiv
Prasad
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Ghazipur, 2006 SCC OnLine All
1485

2. Babu Vs Abdul Shakoor, 2018 (139) R.D. 36
3 All. Smt. Nandini Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya & Ors.
819
3. Smt. Basmati Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, 2019 (145) R.D. 832

4. Budh Lal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,
1982 AWC 447 (DB)

5. Kale Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,
1976 (2) R.D. 69 (SC)

6. Rana Sheo Ambar Singh Vs Allahabad Bank
Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1790

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Hemant Pandey, learned
State Counsel and Sri Krishna Kumar
Dubey, learned Counsel for the side
opposite.

2. By means of the present petition,
the petitioner has assailed the order dated
05.09.2016 passed by opposite party
no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
Ayodhya (in short 'SOC') passed in Appeal
No.
797/1866/1737
(Rajeshwari
Devi
Versus Nandini Devi), as also the order
dated 05.04.2019 passed by opposite party
no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation,
District Ayodhya (in short 'DDC') in
Revision No. 859 (Nandini Devi Versus
Rajeshwari Devi).

3. Brief facts of the case, are to the
effect that the land in dispute i.e. Gata No.
76 (new number 66) situated at VillageMoradabad,
Tehsil-Rudauli,
DistrictFaizabad now Ayodhya, was recorded in
the name of one Bhagwan Bux Singh. The
Bhagwan
Bux
Singh
expired
on
04.12.1991, thereafter the name of his wife
namely Rajeshwari Devi (opposite party
no.3) was recorded in the revenue records
in terms of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950') as
applicable at relevant point of time. Section
171 of the Act of 1950, applicable at
relevant point of time reads as under:-

"[171.
General
order
of
succession -

Subject to the provisions of
Section 169, when a bhumidhar [**] or
asami being a male dies, his interest in his
holding shall devolve in accordance with
the order of succes sion given below-

(a) the male lineal descendant in
the line of descent in equal shares per
strips:

Provided first that, the son of a
pre-deceased son how low-so-over shall
inherit the share which would have
devolved upon the predeceased son, had he
been alive:

Provided secondly that, subject to
the provisions of the first proviso, the share
of a predeceased male lineal descendant
will devolve upon his widow who has not
remarried, and

Provided thirdly that if no male
lineal descendant in male line of descent is
alive the inheritance shall be governed by
clause (b);

(b) widow and widowed mother
and widow of a pre-deceased male lineal
descendant in the male line of descent, who
have not remarried:

Provided first that co-widows will
together get one share, and

Provided secondly that the widow
of a nearer descendant will exclude that of
a remoter one in the same branch;

(c) [Deleted.]

(d) father;

(e) [Deleted.]

(ee) unmarried daughter;

(f) brother, being the son of the
same father as the deceased;

(ff) unmarried sister;

(g) married daughter;

(h) daughter's son;
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) brother's son, the brother
having been son of the same father as the
deceased;

(j) father's father;

(k) father's mother, who has not
remarried;

(1) son's daughter;

(m) married sister;

(n) half-sister being the daughter
of the same father as the deceased;

(o) sister's son;
(00) half-sister's son, the sister having been
the daughter of the same father as the
deceased;

(p) brother's son's son;

(q) father's father's son ;

(r) father's father's son's son.]"

4. After the aforesaid, during
consolidation proceedings, the petitioner
namely Smt. Nandini Devi wife of
Devendra
Kumar
Singh
daughter
of
(Bhagwan Bux Singh and Rajeshwari Devi)
raised her claim over the property in
dispute i.e. Gata No. 76 (new number 66),
detailed above.

5. It would be apt to indicate that the
claim
of
the
petitioner
before
the
authorities under the Act of 1953 as also
before this Court is based upon the
unregistered 'Will' dated 03.12.1991.

6.

During
the
consolidation
proceedings in a chak, Appeal No. 1418 of
2023 (Munni Devi Versus Bhagwan Bux
Singh and Others), the statement(s) of
attesting
witnesse(s)
of
'Will'
dated
03.12.1991 were recorded and based upon
the same the petitioner (Smt. Nandini Devi)
and opposite party no. 3 (Rajeshwari Devi)
were substituted in place of Bhagwan Bux
Singh (died during the pendency of appeal
on 04.12.1991) and a compromise was also
filed in the said appeal and therefore
appellate authority namely SOC, referred
the matter to Assistant Consolidation
Officer concerned.

7. The copies of the statement(s)
of attesting witnesses have been placed on
record by means of filing supplementary
affidavit dated 07.03.2024 and perusal
thereof, would show that these witnesses
were not cross examined and at this stage,
on being asked as to whether these
statements can be considered, learned
Counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated
that these statements cannot be considered,
as per law.

8. After the order passed by the
SOC dated 20.01.1992, the ACO proceeded
in the matter and passed the order dated
24.02.1992. This order dated 24.02.1992
was passed in case no. 125 under Section
12 of the Act of 1953 (Rajeshwari Devi
Versus Bagwan Bux Singh (since died).
The order dated 24.02.1992 passed by
Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ayodhya,
on reproduction reads as under:-

"i=koyh is'k gqbZA i{k gkftj vk;sA fuEu
'krZokj fd;kA gLrgkj tkjh djk;k x;k] fe;kn vUnj
bLrgkj ds fo:) dksbZ vkifRr ugha vk;h rFkk fnukad
24-2-92 dks nksuksa i{kksa ds chp le>kSrk izLrqr fd;k
x;kA xzke iz/kku eq0 olhe us nLrhd fd;kA xzke
eqjknkckn dh vkdkj i= 23 Hkkx&1 ds dzekad 73] 89
rFkk 76 ds lsDVj ua0 2 izFke pd o lsDVj ua0 5
f}rh; pd e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= NaXxk flag
fuoklh eqjknkckn dk uke [kkfjt djds eq0 jkts'ojh
nsoh csok Hkxoku c['k flag fu0 eqjknkckn dk uke
crkSj okfjl ntZ djus dh ekax dh xbZ gS rFkk dzekad
76 ds lsDVj ua06 r`rh; pd ls e`rd Hkxoku c['k
flag iq= NaXxk flag dk uke [kkfjt djds Jheh
ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj flag fu0 eqjknkckn dk uke
crkSj le>kSrk }kjk ntZ djus dh ekax dh xbZ gSA

le>kSrk i<+dj lqukus ds ckn eq0 olhe
iz/kku us rlnhd fd;kA "

9. Being aggrieved by the order dated
24.02.1992 passed by ACO, opposite party
no.3/Rajeshwari Devi wife of Bhagwan
3 All. Smt. Nandini Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya & Ors.
821
Bux Singh, mother of present petitioner
namely Nandini Devi, preferred an appeal
under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953. The
appeal was filed with some delay. After
considering the facts and material available
on record, the SOC condoned the delay and
decide the appeal no. 797/1866/1737 filed
by opposite party no.3/Rajeshwari Devi,
challenging the order dated 24.02.1992, on
merits vide order dated 05.09.2016.

10. The SOC after considering the
entire facts and circumstances of the case
including
the
signature
over
the
compromise in issue, as also Section
171(2) of the Act of 1950, decided the case
in favour of opposite party no.3/Rajeshwari
Devi and rejected the claim of the
petitioner
by
impugned
order
dated
05.09.2016. The relevant portion of the
same reads as under:-

"tgka rd bl ekeys es xq.knks"k ij
foospuk dk iz'u gS] pwafd vihykfFkZuh ds fo}ku
vf/koDrk }kjk xq.knks"k ij viuh cgl dh xbZ gS
ijUrq izfri{kh }kjk i;kZIr volj nsus ds ckn Hkh
vihy ds xq.knks"k ij viuk dFku izLrqr ugha fd;k
x;k gS blfy, i=koyh ij miyC/k muds izfrokn i=
esa fd;s x;s dFku rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds
vk/kkj ij bl vihy esa xq.knks"k ij fu.kZ; fd;k tk
jgk gSA voj U;k;ky; dh okn i=koyh okn la0 125
vUrxZr /kkjk 12 tks0p0v0 le>kSrk o vkns'k fnukad
24-02-92 ds voyksdu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd l0p0v0
U;k;ky; ij izLrqr okn i= ds LrEHk 6 esa ukekUrj.k
dk vk/kkj ^^otfj;s ojklr^^ vafdr gS rFkk LrEHk 7 esa
oknh@izfroknh dk uke o irk vafdr gSA ftlesa oknh
ds :i esa jkts'ojh nsoh o izfroknh ds :i esa Hkxoku
cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag dk uke vafdr djds oknh
ds :i esa lcls uhps jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok Hkxoku
cD'k flag dk uke o fu'kkuh vaxwBk vafdr gSA mDr
okn i= ij okn esa fHkUu dye o gLrfyfi esa dzekad
2 Mkydj ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj dk uke LrEHk 8
esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS] ftlds bl lEcU/k esa Fkkuk
iVjaxk ftyk QStkckn esa izkFkfedh ntZ gS ftldh
foospuk Jh lquhy dqekj mi fujh{kd }kjk dh tk
jgh gS] blfy, bl fcUnq ij vyx ls dksbZ er vafdr
fd;k tkuk fof/k laxr ugha izrhr gksrk gS D;ksafd
blls iqfyl }kjk dh tk jgh vijkf/kd foospuk
izHkkfor gks ldrh gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa
fnukad jfgr ,d le>kSrk i= nkf[ky gS ftlesa dgk
x;k gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe tehankjh mUewyu ds iwoZ ls
gh okfnuh la0 2 ds firk Hkxoku cD'k flag ds uke
ntZ jgh gS ftlesa muds firk us iwoZ pdcUnh esa eq0ua0
11@1 rkjh[k QSlyk 11-7-57 ls mlds i{k esa foHkktu
dj fn;k tks vkjkth ua0 35] 113] 141] 148@1] 307
o 352 /kkjk 210 ds vUrxZr og lhjnkj ?kksf"kr dj
nh x;hA blds ckn Hkh fookfnr uEcjku izfroknh ds
uke ntZ pyk vk jgk gS blfy, vkilh le>kSrk ds
vk/kkj ij pd la0 73 o 89 rFkk pd la0 76 ds
izFke o f}rh; pd ij eq0 jkts'ojh nsoh rFkk r`rh;
pd ij ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj dk uke ntZ fd;k
tk;sA bl lqygukek dks eq0 olhe iz/kku us rLnhd
fd;k gS ftl ij l0p0v0 dk lw{e gLrk{kj o
fnukad 24-7-92 vafdr gSA blh lqygukek dk mYys[k
djds l0p0v0 }kjk le>kSRkk o vkns'k fnukad 24-292 ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftl ij eq0 olhe iz/kku dk
gLrk{kj rFkk jkts'ojh nsoh o ufUnuh dk vaxwBk fpUg
vafdr fd;k x;k gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa
vFkok vihyh; dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku ufUnuh nsoh iRuh
nsosUnz dqekj }kjk ,slk dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; ugha
nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS tks muds iwoZ pdcUnh esa
fookfnr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k gksus lEcU/kh dFku
dks iq"V djrk gksA m0iz0 tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 12 dh O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj /kkjk 10 ds izdk'ku
ds ckn mRiUu dk;Z dkj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq ukekUrj.k
vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS ftlesa fdlh izdkj LoRo
dk fu/kkZj.k ugha fd;k tkrk gS vfirq LoRo dh ekax
ds fy, tks p0v0 dh /kkjk 9d ds vUrxZr vkifRr
izLrqr fd;s tkus dk fo/kku gS ijUrq izfri{kh ufUnuh
dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ vkifRr izLrqr dh xbZ gks bldk
u rks i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; gS vkSj u gh muds }kjk
,slk dksbZ dFku izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
muds }kjk vihy Lrj ij nkf[ky Nk;kizfr dkxtkr
dk dksbZ ykHk ugha fey ldrk gSA tks0p0v0 dh /kkjk
12 ds vUrxZr ;ksftr iz'uxr okn esa voj U;k;ky;
dks dsoy e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag dh
ojklr lEcU/kh vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr
FkkA rRle; izHkkoh m0iz0 ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 171 mi/kkjk 1⁄421⁄2 es of.kZr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj
vihykfFkZuh jkts'ojh nsoh e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq=
Naxk flag tks iqatkrh; oa'kt u gksus ds dkj.k dzekad
d ij of.kZr ,d ek= fo/kok gksus ds dkj.k ,d
vdsyh tk;t okfjl gksrh gSA rRle; m0iz0t0fo0
,oa Hkw0o0 vf/kfu;e 1950 dh /kkjk 171 dh mi/kkjk
1⁄411⁄2 ds [k.M 1⁄4111⁄2 esa ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd
mi/kkjk 1⁄421⁄2 ds fdlh iwoZorhZ [k.M fofufnZ"V
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mRrjkf/kdkjh
mRrjorhZ
[k.Mksa
esa
fofufnZ"V
mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks oftZr dj ysaxs] vFkkZr [k.M 1⁄411⁄2
ds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks [k.M 1⁄4[k1⁄2 ds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa
ij vf/keku fn;k tk;sxk vkSj blh izdkj mRrjorhZ
dze tkjh jgsxkA izfri{kh ufUnuh nsoh fookfgr iq=h
gksus ds ukrs mRrjkf/kdkj dzekad ?k ij gS blfy,
mij of.kZr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj og e`rd Hkxoku cD'k
flag dh tk;t okfjl ugha gks ldrh gS vkSj u gh
mUgsa tks0p0v0 dh /kkjk 12 ds rgr dksbZ LoRo iznku
fd;k tk ldrk gSA mi;qZDr foospu ds ifjizs{; esa
tks0p0v0 dh /kkjk 12 ds vUrxZr l0p0v0 }kjk
le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij pd la0 76 ds r`rh; pd ij
izfri{kh ufUnuh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj ds i{k esa ikfjr
vkns'k {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs ,oa bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr
fopkj.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k [kf.Mr gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk
fookfnr Hkwfe ij e`rd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk
flag ds LFkku ij jkts'ojh nsoh iRuh Hkxoku cD'k
flag xzkeoklh dk uke crkSj okfjl ntZ fd;k tkuk
fof/k laxr izrhr gksrk gSA rnuqlkj ;g vihy Lohdkj
gksus ;ksX; gSA
vkns'k

vr% mi;qZDr foospuk ds ifjizs{; esa
iz'uxr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk voj
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr le>kSrk@vkns'k fnukad 24-2-92
{ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gksus ds dkj.k [kf.Mr fd;k tkrk
gSA xzke eqjknkckn] ijxuk o rglhy :nkSyh ftyk
QStkckn dh pd la0 73] 76 rFkk 89 ls e`rd Hkxoku
cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag xzkeoklh dk uke [kkfjt
djds jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok Hkxoku cD'k flag xzkeoklh
dk uke crkSj fof/kd okfjl ntZ gksA i{kdkj lwfpr
gksa rFkk vxzsrj dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr i=koyh nkf[ky
nQ~rj gksA"

11. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 05.09.2016, the petitioner instituted a
revision
being
Revision
No.859/2016530423000049 (Nandini Devi
Versus Rajeshwari Devi), under Section 48
of the Act of 1953.

12. By the impugned order dated
05.04.2019, the opposite party no.1/D.D.C.
Ayodhya, rejected the revision and affirmed
the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by
opposite party no.2/SOC. The relevant
portion of order dated 05.04.2019, reads as
under:-

"fuxjkuhdrhZ dh vksj ls IkzLrqr fd;s x;s
rdksZ esa eq[; #i ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd jkts'ojh
nsoh us fnukad 15-11-16 dks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djds
dgk gS fd eSus dksbZ vihy nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA
fdlh vU; O;fDr us vihy nkf[ky fd;k gSA tc
uksfVl izkIr gq;h rc mDr okn dh tkudkjh gq;h gSA
budk rdZ gS fd okn la[;k 125 esa /kkjk&12 tksr
pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr lgk;d pdcUnh
vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 24-02-92 dks le>kSrs ds vk/kkj
ij vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA HkxokucD'k e`rd dh
ojklr dk fookn FkkA budk rdZ gS fd izFke pdz
pdcUnh ds [kkrk la[;k 55 Hkxoku cD'k ds uke
[kkrk FkkA blh [kkrs ij vkns'k fnukad 11-07-57 ds
}kjk ufUnuh nsoh dk uke crkSj lhjnkj vafdr gksus
dk vkns'k gqvk gS fdUrq bldk vuqikyu vfxze
vfHkys[kksa esa ugh gqvk Fkk fdUrq mldk pd vyx cuk
gqvk FkkA xyrh ls vfxze vfHkys[kksa esa HkxokucD'k dk
uke ntZ gks x;k FkkA fnukad 03-12-91 dks Hkxoku
cD'k flag us viathd`r olh;rukek viuh IkRuh ds
i{k esa rgjhj fd;k rFkk mYYks[k fd;k x;k fd bUgsa
cspus o _`.k ysus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxk rFkk
jkts'ojh nsoh dh e`R;q ds ckn mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh ufUnuh
nsoh gksxhaA fnukad 04-12-91 dks HkxokucD'k ej x;sA
fnukad 20-01-92 dks jkts'ojh nsoh o ufUnuh nsoh ds
e/; lqyg gq;hA blh lqygukesa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad
24-02-92 dks vkns'k ikfjr gqvk gSA budk rdZ gS fd
vkns'k fnukad 24-02-92 dh tkudkjh jkts'ojh nsoh dks
gS ,oa mlds }kjk o"kZ 1998 esa cSukek fd;k x;k gSA
jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk cUnkscLRk vf/kdkjh pdCkUnh ds
le{k dksbZ vihy lafLFkr ugha dh x;h gSA lqcq)
vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd okn /kkjk&9d1⁄421⁄2 ds vUrxZr
gksuk pkfg, Fkk tks /kkjk&12 esa gqvk gSA ;g vf/koDrk
dh lykg ij gSA budk rdZ gS fd vihyh; U;k;ky;
}kjk xyr #i ls vihy dks Lohdkj djds okn Hkwfe
ij jkts'ojh nsoh dk uke vafdr fd;k x;k gSA ;g
Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tk;
rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fujLr djds
i=koyh iqu% xq.knks"k ij fuLrkj.k gsrq vihyh;
U;k;ky; dks izfriszf"kr dh tk;A budh vksj ls bl
U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkj0ts0 1991 ist 335 dh vksj
vkd`"V djk;k x;k gSA

mRrjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s
rdksZ esa eq[; #i ls dgk x;k gS fd fnukad 24-02-92
dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa tksr pdcUnh vkdkj
i=&41 o 45 esa jkts'ojh dk uke vk;kA blh vkns'k
esa tkylkth dh x;hA blh tkylkth ds vk/kkj ij
/kkjk&33@39 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e esa okn nkf[ky
fd;k x;kA ftl ij mi ftykf/kdkjh us vkns'k
fnukad 31-12-2014 ikfjr fd;k gSA budk rdZ gS fd
3 All. Smt. Nandini Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya & Ors.
823
mlds fo#) izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;kA vkns'k LFkfxr
gqvk rFkk [kkfjt gks x;kA iquZLFkkiu izkFkZuk i= fn;k
x;k tks py jgk gSA fnukad 29-4-2015 dks vihy
nkf[ky gq;h gSA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd
1957 esa ufUnuh dh vk;q 07 o"kZ Fkh blfy, brus de
mez esa lhjnkj dSls gq;h\A tks le>kSrk nkf[ky gqvk
mls cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds le{k ugh j[kk
x;kA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd pdcUnh
esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu gsrq fu;e 109 esa
dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h] cfYd pdcUnh ds vkns'k ds
vuqikyu gsrq /kkjk&33@39 ds vUrxZr okn izLrqr
fd;k x;kA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd o"kZ 1957
esa ;fn dksbZ vkns'k Fkk rks f}rh; pdz pdcUnh esa mls
D;ks ugha mBk;k x;kA dksbZ Hkh iathd`r vfHkys[k ugha
gSA lqcq) vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd Hkxoku cD'k flag
e`rd ds LFkku ij mudh fo/kok jkts'ojh nsoh dk
uke lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k
Fkk vkSj mlh vuqlkj vfHkys[k Hkh fufeZr gq;s FksA
ufUnuh nsoh }kjk vfHkys[kksa esa tkylkth djkdj
viuk uke vafdr djk fy;k x;k Fkk ftls vihyh;
U;k;ky; }kjk dwVjpuk ds vk/kkj ij vafdr ikrs gq,
fujLr dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk e`rd Hkxoku flag ds
LFkku ij mudh fo/kok jkts'ojh nsoh dk uke mfpr
#i ls vafdr fd;k x;k gSA vihyh; U;k;ky; ds
vkns'k esa dksbZ =qfV ugha gS fuxjkuh fujk/kkj gS ,oa
fujLr dh tk;A

eSusa voj U;k;ky;ks dh i=koyh ij
miyC/k vkns'k] lHkh laxr lk{;ks dk fof/k ds vkyksd
esa fogaxe ifj'khyu ,oa ijh{k.k fd;kA blds
vfrfjDRk nksuks i{kksa ds vf/koDrk }; dh rdZiw.kZ cgl
lqukA Li"V gS fd xzke eqjknkckn esa pdcUnh izfdz;k
izpfyr jgrs gh [kkrsnkj HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk
flag dk nsgkUr gks x;kA jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk /kkjk&12
ds vUrxZr pd la[;k 89] 73] o 76 ij e`rd Hkxoku
flag ds LFkku ij fo/kok ds #i esa uke vafdr djus
gsrq ukekUrj.k okn izLrqr fd;k x;k ,oa LrEHk 06 esa
ukekUrj.k dk vk/kkj ctfj;s ojklr vafdr gSA LRkEHk
7 esa oknh o izfroknh dk uke o irk vafdr gSA oknh
ds #i esa jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok HkxokucD'k flag rFkk
izfroknh ds #i esa HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk flag
vafdr gS rFkk blds uhps jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok
HkxokucD'k flag dk uke o fu'kkuh vaxwBk yxk gSA
mDr okn i= ij fo'ks"k fooj.k ds dkye esa ufUnuh
iRuh nsosUnz dqekj fuoklh xzke eqjknkckn ijxuk o
rglhy #nkSyh ftyk ckjkcadh fHkUu dye ls fHkUu
ys[k esa fy[kk x;k gS ,oa jkts'ojh ds uke ds Åij
dks"Bd cukdj ,d ,oa ufUnuh ds uke ds Åij
dks"Bd cukdj nks fy[kk x;k gSA bl dwVjpuk ds
lEcU/k esa Fkkuk iVjaxk ftyk QStkckn esa izkFkfedh
ntZ gS] ftldh foospuk dh tk jgh gSA bl fcUnq ij
vyx ls dksbZ er O;Dr fd;k tkuk fof/klaxr ugh
gSA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa fnukad jfgr ,d
le>kSrk i= nkf[ky gS ftlesa mYys[k gS fd eqdnek
ua0 11@1 rkjh[k QSlyk 11-07-57 ds }kjk
HkXkokucD'k flag ds uke vafdr Hkwfe] Hkwfe la[;k 35]
113] 141] 148@1] 307 o 352 ufUnuh nsoh lhjnkj
?kksf"kr dj nh x;hA blds ckn Hkh fookfnr Hkwfe ij
izfroknh dk uke ntZ pyk vk jgk gSA blfy, vkilh
le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij pd la[;k 73]89 rFkk 76 ds
izFke o f}rh; pd ij eq0 jkts'ojh nsoh rFkk r`rh;
pd ij ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj dk uke ntZ
fd;k tk;A bl lqygukek dks eks0 olhe iz/kku us
rLnhd fd;k gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk ,slk dksbZ lk{;
izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS tks iwoZ pdcUnh esa fookfnr
Hkwfe ds lECkU/k esa ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'k dh iqf"V
djrk gksA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd pdCkUnh
fdz;kvks ds vUrxZr xzke esa /kkjk&10 ds izdk'ku ds
i'pkr mRiUu okn dkj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq m0iz0 tksr
pdCkUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&12 dh O;oLFkk gSA bl
izdj.k esa fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk izFke pdz pdCkUnh ds
ftl vkns'k ds vuqlkj lqygukes ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k
dk gksuk dgk x;k gS] mDr dk;Zokgh gsrq fu;ekuqlkj
xzke esa /kkjk&9 ds izdk'ku ds iwoZ lR;kiu [krkSuh ds
le; RkRlEcU/kh fookn fufeZr gksuk pkfg, Fkk ,oa
/kkjk&9 ds izdk'ku ds mijkUr RkRlEcU/kh vkifRRk Hkh
izLrqr gksdj fu;ekuqlkj lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k
dk xq.knks"k ij fuLrkj.k gksuk pkfg, FkkA bl izdj.k
esa xzke esa lR;kiu [krkSuh ds le; ,slk dksbZ ruktk
fufeZr gqvk vkSj u gh okn Hkwfe ij fuxjkuhdrhZ ds
dCts dk gh dksbZ ruktk fufeZr gqvk vkSj u] gh
fuxjkuhdrhZ dh vksj ls izFke pdz pdCkUnh esa ikfjr
vkns'k dk vuqikyu fu;e 109 ds vUrxZr djk;k
x;k vkSj u gh f}rh; pdz pdcUnh izkjEHk gksus ds
mijkUr /kkjk&9 ds vURkxZr ,slk dksbZ vkifRr gh
izLrqr dh x;hA

i=koyh ij miyC/k f}rh; pdz pdcUnh
ds tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&41 o 45 ds voyksdu
ls Li"V gS fd Hkxoku cD'k flag iq= Naxk flag ds
nsgkUr ds mijkUr jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk /kkjk&12 ds
vUrxZr izLrqr ukekUrj.k okn esa ikfjr vkns'k ds
vuqlkj pd la[;k 89] 73] o 76 ds lHkh pdks ls
fufeZr tksr pdCkUnh vkdkj i=&41 o 45 esa
HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk flag ds LFkku ij Jherh
jkts'ojh nsoh fo/kok HkxokucD'k flag xzkeoklh dk
uke vafdr gqvk gSA

;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ;fn
/kkjk&12 ds vUrxZr izLrqr okn la[;k 125 esa ikfjr
lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 24-02-92
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ds }kjk pd la[;k 73] 89] o 76 ds lsDVj ua0 02
izFke pd o lsDVj uEcj 05 f}rh; pd ij eq0
jkts'ojh nsoh csok Hkxoku cD'k flag ,oa dzekad 76 ds
lsDVj ua0 6 ds r`rh; pd ij Jherh ufUnuh nsoh
iRuh nsosUnz dqekj flag dk uke vafdr gqvk gksrk rks
rRle; xzke ds vfUre vfHkys[k fufeZr djrs le;
tksr pdCkUnh vkdkj i=&41 o 45 ij vkns'k fnuakd
24-02-92 ds vuqikyu esa pd la[;k 76 ds r`rh; pd
xkVk la[;k 71fe0 vkfn dqy 06 fdrk {ks=Qy 2-929
gs0 ls fufeZr uohu xkVk la[;k 66@2-929gs0 Jherh
jkts'ojh nsoh csok HkxokucD'k flag ds uke vafdr u
gksdj Jherh ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz dqekj flag ds
uke vafdr gqvk gksrk fdUrq uohu xkVk la[;k 66@2929gs0 tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&45 dh [kkrk la[;k
100 esa pd la[;k 76 izFke o f}rh; ds uohu xkVk
la[;k 47 o 49 ds lkFk jkts'ojh nsoh dk vdsys uke
vafdr gksuk LIk"V djrk gS fd lgk;d pdCkUnh
vf/kdkjh }kjk /kkjk&12 ds vUrxZr e`rd HkxokucD'k
flag ds LFkku ij ojklru mudh fo/kok Jherh
jkts'ojh nsoh dk uke gh vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj
mlh vuqlkj xzke ds vfUre vfHkys[k fufeZr fd;s x;s
FksA

lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh dh okn
i=koyh la[;k 125 vUrXkZr /kkjk&12 ds lkFk layXu
ukekUrj.k okn i= esa fo'ks"k fooj.k ds LrEHk 8 esa
fHkUu dye o fHkUu ys[k ls ufUnuh nsoh iRuh nsosUnz
dqekj c<+k;k tkuk rFkk i=koyh esa laf/ki= laYkXu
djds mlds vk/kkj ij vkns'k fufeZr fd;k tkuk Li"V
djrk gS fd dwVjpuk ds vk/kkj ij iwoZ ikfjr vkns'k
gVkdj uohu vkns'k j[kk x;k gS D;ksafd ;fn oLrqr%
;gh vkns'k ikfjr gqvk gksrk rks xzke ds vfUre
vfHkys[k blh vuqlkj fufeZr fd;s tkrsA

;gkW ij ;g Hkh LIk"V djuk lehphu gS
fd pdCkUnh izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ;fn tksr
pdcUnh vkdkj i=& 41 o 45 esa fdz;kfUor djus ls
NwV Hkh x;k gS rks Hkh bldk fdz;kUo;u yS.M jsosU;w
,sDV dh /kkjk&33@39 esa ugha gks ldrkA ,sls vkns'kksa
dks izFker% tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&481⁄431⁄2 esa
ijhf{kr djus ds ckn fu;e 109,1⁄411⁄2 esa vuqikfyr
fd;k tkuk pkfg,A yS.M jsosU;w ,sDV dh /kkjk&33@39
dh ifjf/k ek= [krkSuh dh fyfidh; ,ao vadxf.krh;
=qfV dks 'kq) djus dh gS tks /kkjk&521⁄411⁄2 tksr
pdCkUnh vf/kfu;e esa iz[;kiu ds ckn rglhy esa gks
tkrh gSA

,d egRoiw.kZ fcUnq ;g Hkh gS fd fdlh Hkh
U;k;ky; esa mRrjkf/kdkj dk lkekU; dze ifjofrZr
ugha gksrk gSA lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh ds le{k
HkxokucD'k flag iq= Naxk flag ds mRrjkf/kdkj ds
fo"k; esa izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;kA tc HkxokucD'k flag
dh fo/kok jkts'ojh nsoh thfor Fkh rks ufUnuh nsoh Hkh
HkxokucD'k flag dh mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh jkts'ojh nsoh
1⁄4eka1⁄2 ds thoudky esa dSls gks ldrh Fkh\A bl fo"k;
esa Hkys gh dksbZ laf/k ekW&csVh esa gq;h gks] ijUrq dksbZ Hkh
laf/k izpfyr fof/k ds fo#) Lohdkj ugha gks ldrh
gSA

;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd jkts'ojh nsoh o
HkxokucD'k flag dh rhu iqf=;kW gSA lHkh vius&vius
i{k esa olh;rukek dh ckr djrh gSA pwWfd xzke esa
/kkjk&521⁄411⁄2 dk iz[;kiu gks pqdk gS] blfy, okn
dkj.k vc pdcUnh U;k;ky;ksa dh ifjf/k esa ugha gSA
bldk lgh ijh{k.k jktLo U;k;ky; ls gh gks ldrk
gSA bruk vo'; gS fd tc HkxokucD'k flag ds }kjk
muds thoudky esa gh fu"ikfnr ,d rFkkdfFkr
viathd`r olh;rukek fnukad 03-12-91 Fkk] ftlesa ;g
Li"V Fkk fd jkts'ojh nsoh] HkxokucD'k flag ls izkIr
Hkwfe dks fodz; ugha dj ldrh vkSj jkts'ojh nsoh dh
e`R;q ds ckn mudh ek= ,d iq=h ufUnuh nsoh gh
mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh gksxha rc jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk o"kZ 1998
esa Hkwfe fodz; djus ij ufUnuh nsoh }kjk fojks/k D;ksa
ugha fd;k x;k\A nwljs ;g fd tc jkts'ojh nsoh ds
ckn mDRk olh;rukesa ds vk/kkj ij ufUnuh nsoh
mRrjkf/kdkfj.kh curh] rc HkxokucD'k dh e`R;q ds
ckn mUgsa jkts'ojh nsoh ds lkFk gh ,d va'k ij
lgHkwfe/kj
cuus
dh
D;k
vko';drk
Fkh\A
fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lqcq) vf/koDRkk bu iz'uksa dk dksbZ
larks"ktud mRrj ugha ns ik;sA

tgkW rd fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lqcq) vf/koDrk
dk ;g dFku fd jkts'ojh nsoh }kjk dksbZ vihy ugha
dh x;h] Lohdku ugha fd;k tk ldrk] D;ksafd
vihyh; Lrj ij nks ckn ufUnuh nsoh us ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk lafLFkr dh FkhA ;kfpdk la[;k
17883@2016 Jherh ufUnuh nsoh cuke Mh0Mh0lh0
QStkckn o vU; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vkns'k
fnukad 19-08-2016 esa Li"V dj fn;k gS fd cUnkscLr
vf/kdkjh pdcUnh okn dk fUkLrkj.k xq.knks"k ij
djsxsaA mUgsa okn dks fuLrkfjr djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj
izkIr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk izorhZ
va'k fuEUkor~ gS %&

"Without commenting anything
on the merit of the case, this court directs
that
the
matter
pending
before
the
settlement
officer
of
Consolidation,
Faizabad shall be decided by settlement
officer of Consolidation Faizabad on merit
also. However, so far the jurisdiction is
concerned,
the
settlement
officer
of
3 All. Smt. Nandini Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya & Ors.
825
consolidation shall have all the jurisdiction
to decide the matter.''

tc vihyh; Lrj ij gh ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; us izdj.k dks xq.knks"k ij fuLrkfjr djus dk
vkns'k ns fn;k vkSj ;g Hkh Li"V dj fn;k fd
cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh dks bl okn dks fUkLrkfjr
djus dk iw.kZ {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gS] rc fuxjkuh Lrj ij
;g rduhdh fcUnq mBkuk fd vihy jkts'ojh nsoh
}kjk ugh nkf[ky Fkh vFkok vihy vfr'k; dkyckf/kr
Fkh] Lohdkj ugh fd;k tk ldrkA bl izdkj
fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lqcq) vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr fof/k
O;oLFkk vkj0ts0 1991 ist 335 bl izdj.k ij ykxw
ugha gSA

izdj.k esa eq[; fcUnq lgk;d pdCkUnh
vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 24-02-92 esa dh x;h
dwVjpuk ls FkkA bl ij Åij foosfpr fd, va'k ds
vuqlkj u rks lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dks laf/k i=
ds vk/kkj ij ekrk ds thfor jgrs] firk fd Hkw&lEifr
esa] rhu esa ls ek= ,d iq=h ufUnuh nsoh dk uke
vafdr djus dk vf/kdkj gh Fkk vkSj u] gh ,sls fdlh
vkns'k dk fdz;kUo;u yS.M jsosU;w ,sDV dh
/kkjk&33@39 esa gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA D;ksafd
pdcUnh esa tks vfUre vfHkys[k fufeZr gq,] mlesa
HkxokucD'k iq= Naxk flag ds LFkku ij ek= mudh
fo/kok iRuh jkts'ojh nsoh iRuh HkxokucD'k dk gh
uke vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k] blls Li"V gS fd lgk;d
pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k ek= mrus va'k rd gh
FkkA dksbZ dkj.k fo|eku ugha gS fd vk/ks vkns'k dk
ikyu gks vkSj vk/kk NwV tk;A

,slh fLFkfr esa] eSa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh
pdcUnh ds vkns'k esa fdlh izdkj dh =qfV ;k
vfu;ferrk ugha ikrk gwWA fuxjkuh cyghu gS vkSj
fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
vkns'k

mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g
fuxjkuh fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh vxzsrj
dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr jktLo vfHkys[kky; esa lafpr
gksA"

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
assailing the impugned order(s) stated that
in view of recitals of the 'Will' dated
03.12.1991, the testator Raj Bux Singh, has
provided
life
time
interest
to
the
Rajeshwari Devi and as such the petitioner
is entitled to rights over the property in
dispute i.e. Gata No. 66, detailed above on
the basis of 'Will' dated 03.12.1991 and
also the compromise filed before ACO, the
basis of order dated 24.02.1992 of A.C.O.

14. Per contra, the learned Counsel
for the side opposite submitted that the
claim of the petitioner is liable to be
rejected and the present petition is liable to
be dismissed for the reasons that 'Will'
dated 03.12.1991 the basis of claim of the
petitioner, was not proved before the
authorities under the Act of 1953 and this is
undisputed fact and also that alleged
compromise was in violation of law.

15. Considered the aforesaid and
perused the records.

16. So far as the claim of the
petitioner based upon the undisputed 'Will'
dated 03.12.1991 is concerned, the same
has no force. It is for the reason that
undisputedly the unregistered 'Will' dated
03.12.1991, the basis of the claim of the
petitioner, was not proved, as per law,
before the authorities under the Act of
1953.

17. In regard to claim based upon the
compromise, this Court finds it appropriate
to refer some pronouncements.

18. In the case of Shiv Prasad Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ghazipur and Ors. reported in 2006 SCC
OnLine All 1485, this Court observed as
under:-

"7. On the basis of pleadings
and arguments of the parties, the first
question that arises for consideration is
whether under the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act a compromise could be
entered into between the parties as
contemplated under the C.P.C. at any stage
in proceedings arising out of Section 9A(2)/Section
11/Section
12/Section
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21/Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, secondly, whether title of the
parties in the land which is creation of a
statute could be determined on the basis of
a compromise for exclusive title or for
determination of share in a joint holding
and, thirdly, whether a person could be
declared as Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami on
the basis of a compromise in the
proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act or any other proceeding
under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act without any title in law.

8. Before delving into this
question, I feel called to advert to certain
provisions
of
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act. Section 3(4-C) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act defines
land, same is being reproduced as under:-

"3(4-C) 'Holding' means a parcel
or parcels of land held under one tenure by
a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other
tenure-holders."

Section 3(11) defines tenureholder which runs as under:-

"3(11) 'Tenure-holder' means a
(bhumidhar with transferable rights or
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights),
and includes-

(a) an asami,

(b) a Government lessee or
Government grantee, or

(c) a co-operative farming society
satisfying such conditions as may be
prescribed."

9. Definition in Section 3(12) also
makes it clear that "Words and expressions
not defined in this Act but (used or) defined
in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, but
(used or) in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall have the
meaning assigned to them in the Act in
which they are so (used or) defined."

10. Under the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, the procedure prescribed
is that after spot verification, as required
under the Act and the Rules, Consolidation
Officer shall prepare a statement of
principles under Section 8-A as well as
statement under Section 8 of the U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
on
verification of map and land record,
thereafter, record shall be published and the
statement
showing
the
mistakes
(undisputed cases of succession) and
disputes discovered during the test and
verification of the record of right during the
course of the field to field portal shall be
published in the village. Any objection to
that shall be filed on publication of record
under Section. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
before
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
disputing
the
correctness and nature of the entries in the
record or in the extract furnished therefrom
or in the statement of principles, or the
need for partition. At the stage of Assistant
Consolidation Officer, the only provision
under which a compromise, by way of
conciliation, could be entered into is Rule
25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Rules which is being reproduced below:-

"25-A. Sections 9-A, 9-B and 9C.-(1)
The
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer shall, as far as possible, deal with
all the objections filed by a tenure-holder
with regard to matters referred to in clause
(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A and
sub-section (1) of Section 9-B in village
itself. In decided dispute on the basis of
conciliation in terms of sub-section (1) of
Section 9-A, he shall record the terms of
conciliation in the presence of at least two
members of the Consolidation Committee
of the village. These terms shall then be
read over to the parties concerned and their
signatures or thumb impressions obtained.
The
members
of
the
Consolidation
3 All. Smt. Nandini Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya & Ors.
827
Committee present shall also sign the terms
of conciliation specifying the precise
entries to be made in the records. Details of
the operative part of the orders passed by
the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be
noted in the Misiband register. No ex-parte
order or orders in default shall be passed by
the Assistant Consolidation Officer.

(2) In all cases in which the
Assistant Consolidation Officer sends a
report, under the provisions of sub-section
(2) of Section 9-A, or sub-section (1) of
Section 9-B to the Consolidation Officer
for disposal, he may fix a date and place for
the
disposal
of
the
cases
by
the
Consolidation Officer and communicate the
same to the parties present before him and
issue notices in C.H. Form 6-A to the
parties not so present. The report of the
Assistant Consolidation Officer in such
cases clearly brings out the points in
dispute between the parties and the efforts
made by him to reconcile them."

11. The quintessence of the above
rule
i.e.
Rule
25-A
of
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules at the risk
of repetition is that at the stage of Assistant
Consolidation Officer conciliation may take
place in terms of sub-section (1) of Section
9-A and sub-section (1) of Section 9-B and
Assistant Consolidation Officer shall record
terms of conciliation in the presence of two
members of Consolidation Committee. The
terms shall then be read over to the parties
concerned and their signature and thumb
impression shall be obtained. The members
of Consolidation Committee shall also sign
the terms of conciliation and then Assistant
Consolidation Officer shall pass orders
deciding dispute in terms of conciliation.
The details of the operative part of the
order passed by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer, it is further envisaged in the Rule,
shall be noted in the Misiband Register. No
ex parte order or order in default shall be
passed by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer. All disputed cases received from
the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be
entered in the Misiband Register in the
office of the Consolidation Officer and the
Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties,
frame issues on the points in issue and take
evidence and then decide the dispute. In the
case of partition in case any objection is
filed, the Consolidation Officer shall
proceed with the partition, only after
recording reasons in writing if he considers
it in the interest of better consolidation.

12. There is no provision under
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or
Rules
framed
thereunder
by
which
provisions of O. XXIII, R. 3 of C.P.C. have
been made applicable to consolidation
proceedings.
The
intention
of
the
Legislature
while
enacting
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
was
development of agriculture land as is
eloquent from the preamble of the Act.

13. As stated supra, the only
provision under the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act and the Rules framed
thereunder for conciliation is Rule 25-A.
Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Rules, as discussed above,
provides that a person could get his rights
settled through conciliation in case his
rights are recognised by a statute. A person
cannot get any right settled or declared in
conciliation proceedings under Rule 25-A
of the U.P. Consolidations of Holdings
Rules if his rights are not recognised by
statute. The intention of Legislature while
framing
Rule
25-A
of
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules clearly is
that the parties may not be drawn into
avoidable
and
unnecessary
litigation
relating to their legitimate rights created
under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act and for correction of the
entries in the revenue records. Intention of
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Legislature while enacting Rule 25-A of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules is
clear and a person cannot get any right
under Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Rules which was never created
and recognised by the statute under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
on abolition of Zamindari or under any
other subsequent amendment of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.
A tenure-holder could get his legitimate
right of co-tenancy in case land was
acquired by common ancestors or jointly
by way of reconciliation. Similarly, if an
entry in the joint name of a number of
tenure-holders is incorrectly recorded,
parties may get the entry corrected by
conciliation under Rule 25-A of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules setting the
matter/rights by mutual partition or by
recognising family settlement already taken
place and already acted upon by the parties
to get the entry corrected accordingly. But a
tenure-holder cannot get any exclusive
right in a proceeding under Section 25-A of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules
unless such Rules are recognised by statute.

14. In 1976 (2) R.D. 69, Kale v.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, it has
been held by the Supreme Court that family
arrangements acted upon by parties could
be
recognised
by
the
consolidation
authorities as family arrangement operates
as estoppels against parties having taken
benefit thereunder.

15. There is no provision under
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for
compromise at any of the stage of
consolidation proceedings either under
Sections 9-A, 9-B, 11, 20, 21 or Section 48
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Though under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, the provisions of
C.P.C.