# Vegraj v. D.D.C./Additional Collector, Bareilly and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 632
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-07-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26885 of 2000
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vegraj-v-d-d-c-additional-collector-bareilly-and-others-40287
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri W.H. Khan
Sri A.P. Srivastava
Sri Shyam Lal
Sri A.K. Srivastava
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

Limitation Act, 1963- S.5-Second AppealAbatement- Death of Respondent no. 5
during
appeal-
Delay
in
filing

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
632
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26885 of 2000

Vegraj

...Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation/
Additional Collector, Bareilly and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sankatha Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.C. Katiyar
Sri A.K. Sachan
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-S-9-AObjection
under
S.
9-A
by
widow
claiming one half share-opposed on
ground of remarriage-Rejection by C.O.
and S.O.C.-D.D.C. revered findings-Writ
against-Held, judgments of C.O. and
S.O.C.
based
on
inadmissible
documentary
evidence-D.D.C.
fully
competent
to
interfere
with
such
findings-Writ dismissed.

The judgments of Consolidation Officer
and Settlement Officer, Consolidation
were also based on some irrelevant and
inadmissible documentary evidence, filed
by petitioner, pertaining to the period
during
pendency
of
the
litigation.
Deputy Director of Consolidation is fully
competent to interfere with the findings
arrived at by subordinate consolidation
authorities relying upon such evidence.

Para 9

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the judgment passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation dated 10th May,
2000 allowing the revision filed by Opp.
Party no.2.

2. The dispute relates to one half
share of Kunwar Sen who died leaving his
widow Mst. Tarawati-Opp. Party no.2.
On publication of records in village an
objection under Section-9-A of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed
by Mst. Tarawati claiming one half share
in the land in dispute. Said objection of
Mst. Tarawati was opposed by petitioner
on the ground that Mst. Tarawati
remarried with one Siya Ram and
whatever rights she inherited being
widow of Kunwar Sen came to an end.

3.

Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement Officer, Consolidation rejected
objection of Opp. Party no.2, but Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
allowed
revision and reversed findings and order
of authorities below. Deputy Director of
Consolidation recorded a clear cut finding
that remarriage has not taken place and
Mst. Tarawati is still continuing as widow
of Kunwar Sen.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner
urged that finding of Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation
on
the
question
of
remarriage was not considered by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation while
reversing the orders. It was further urged
that Deputy Director of Consolidation
cannot interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by Consolidation Officer and
Settlement Officer, Consolidation and as
such order passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation is liable to be quashed.

6. I considered arguments of learned
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Vegraj V. D.D.C./Additional Collector, Bareilly and others
633
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

7. While reversing the judgments of
subordinate
Consolidation
authorities,
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
considered the judgments in totality and
recorded his finding about illegalities
committed by them. I do not agree with
the argument of learned counsel for
petitioner
that
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
did
not
consider
the
judgments of subordinate Consolidation
authorities at the time of passing the final
orders by which he reversed judgments of
subordinate Consolidation authorities.

8. Deputy Director of Consolidation
has rightly appreciated admissible oral
and documentary evidence and rightly
recorded a finding of fact that no
remarriage has taken place. Kunwar Sen
husband of Opp. Party no.2 died on
236.1980. Litigation between petitionerVegraj and Tarawati-Opp. Party no.2
started in 1981 in Civil, Revenue and
Criminal Courts. Kutumb Register of
1988, Voter list of year 1988 and other
documents are of subsequent to beginning
of litigation between the parties and were
rightly not relied upon by Deputy Director
of Consolidation. For this purpose he has
also
recorded
reasons
that
those
documents were wrongly and illegally
considered by subordinate consolidation
authorities to arrive at a conclusion of
remarriage. I asked from learned counsel
for petitioner the date of remarriage of
Mst. Tarawati, but he could not show the
date of remarriage in the pleadings of
petitioner.

9. The judgments of Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation were also based on some
irrelevant and inadmissible documentary
evidence, filed by petitioner, pertaining to
the period during pendency of the
litigation.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation is fully competent to
interfere with the findings arrived at by
subordinate
consolidation
authorities
relying upon such evidence.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner
could not show any perversity in any of
the findings recorded by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation.

11. Writ petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to cost.
Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.7.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43189 Of
1993

Shiv Narain Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri M.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri W.H. Khan
Sri A.P. Srivastava
Sri Shyam Lal
Sri A.K. Srivastava
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

Limitation Act, 1963- S.5-Second AppealAbatement- Death of Respondent no. 5
during
appeal-
Delay
in
filing