Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6034 of 1983 Petitioner :- Chaturi Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S.N. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,A.S. Diwekar,Shamshad Ahmad,Shashi Kant Sharma
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri H.S.N Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shamshad Ahmad, counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6 and their heirs.
The facts of the case are that Madhav and subsequently his son Soman were the recorded tenure holders of Khata Nos. 25 and 174. After the death of Soman, the name of his wife Marachhi was recorded as a tenure holder of the said plots in the revenue records. After the death of Marachhi and during the consolidation operations in the Village, the respondent nos.3 to 6, claiming themselves to be the daughters of Soman and Marachhi, filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) registering Case No.19865 before the Consolidation Officer, District Deoria.
The petitioner opposed the objections filed by respondent nos. 3 to 6 alleging that the respondent nos.3 to 6 were not the daughters of Soman and Mirachhi and on the ground that Soman had executed a Will dated 6.4.1981 in his favour regarding the plots included in Khata nos.25 and 174. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 28.12.1979 dismissed the objections filed by respondent nos. 3 to 6 after holding that the respondent nos. 3 to 6 had not been able to prove that they were the daughters of Soman and Marachhi and after recording a finding on the alleged Will executed by Soman in favour of the petitioner.
Aggrieved, the respondent nos. 3 to 6 filed Appeal No.839 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 5.4.1982. The order dated 5.4.1982 was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation District Deoria under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 through Revision No.1114/368. The respondent no.1 i.e Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his judgement and order dated 30.4.1983 dismissed the said revision.
The orders dated 5.4.1982 and 30.4.1983 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.
The impugned orders have been passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after recording a finding that the respondent nos. 3 to 6 were the daughters of Soman and Marachhi. The aforesaid findings have been recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation relying on the different birth registers and family registers produced by respondent nos. 3 to 6 and also the statements of witnesses produced by the said respondents.
In their impugned orders, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have also rejected the claim of the petitioner based on the Will dated 6.4.1951 allegedly executed by Soman in his favour. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have held that the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the petitioner had not been able to remove those suspicious circumstances. The suspicious circumstances narrated in the impugned orders were that after the death of Soman, his widow Marachhi was recorded in the revenue records and the petitioner had not been able to explain his failure to get his name recorded in the revenue records after the death of Soman on the basis of the Will executed in his favour by Soman. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also held that the Will appeared to be a forged document and was therefore, not reliable.
In view of the aforesaid findings, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the claim of the petitioner. The findings and the consequential orders recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on evidence on record and there is no perversity in the aforesaid findings. Merely because another opinion on the same evidence is possible cannot be a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
There is no illegality in the orders dated 5.4.1982 and 30.4.1983 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent nos. 1 & 2.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019/IB