Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1092 of 2021 Petitioner :- Harish Chandra And 6 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahendra Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the petitioners.
Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the Caveator- respondent nos.4 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are present.
Instant writ petition has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.2.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent no. 1) and order dated 19.1.2017 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') (respondent no. 2).
Dispute relates to the title proceeding with respect to the property in question which belongs to the Shobharam S/o Dayal, residents of village Hindupur, Mauja Sahan, Paragna and Tehsil Karhal, District Mainpur. From the record, it emerges that Shobharam had three sons, namely Harbhan Singh, Bhoore Singh and Ramnath. Harbhan Singh was the eldest son in the family and he used to take care of the entire family affairs. After death of the father namely, Shobharam, an objection had been filed by Harbhan Singh to record the name of sons of Shobharam over Khata No. 204 and 1335. The Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.') had passed order dated 4.4.1995 recording the names of Harbhan Singh and Bhoore Singh in Case No. 267 under Section 12 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act').
Ramnath (predecessor in the interest of respondent nos.4 to 6), while came to know qua ex parte order dated 4.4.1995 wherein his name had not been ordered to be mutated in the revenue record being son of Shobharam, had filed belated appeal dated 10.12.2014 with a prayer to condone delay in filing the appeal and claimed his right and title over the property in question being heir and legal representative of Shobharam. S.O.C. has condoned delay in filing the appeal under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act, vide its order dated 19.1.2017 (Annexure-4).
Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioners, who are the descendants from common ancestors, Harbhan Singh and Bhoore Singh, have preferred a revision dated 25.1.2017 (Annexure no. 5) against the order dated 19.1.2017 which was dismissed by D.D.C., vide its order dated 15.2.2021, (Annexure-6), which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
In the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the right and title of the Ramnath on the ground that he had relinquished his right and title from the land in question by moving an application dated 26.7.1989 before the C.O., therefore, at later stage, he cannot challenge the order passed by the C.O. on the ground that he should also be granted share over the property in question. It is also averred in the writ petition that in the family settlements, property in dispute, came into the share of Harbhan Singh and Bhoore Singh, whereas the remaining property came into the share of Ramnath. In the light of aforesaid fact, petitioners have tried to make out their right and title over the property in question, and urged that appeal filed by Ramnath is not maintainable and, accordingly, both the orders passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. respectively, should be quashed.
Perusal of the record reveals that nothing has been decided finally with respect to the right and title of the parties in the impugned orders passed by S.O.C. and D.D.C. Condoning the delay in filing the appeal does not amount final adjudication of right and title of the parties over the property in question. In condoning the delay, concerned courts have discussed the bonafides of Ramnath, who is claiming his right and title over the property in question on the basis of succession being son of Shobharam. His name to be recorded in the revenue record as successor, has, prima facie, been found genuine, at this stage, for the purposes of condonation of delay. The S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have found, prima facie, a case of interference, for condoning the delay, and continuing the proceeding arising out of objection under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act.
This Court finds no illegality, perversity or error in the impugned orders, wherein the S.O.C., in positive exercise of jurisdiction, had condoned delay in filing the appeal, and the same was affirmed by revisional court. In the interest of justice, seeing the bonafide claim of the Ramnath, both the Courts have rightly condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Question raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition with respect to the application dated 26.7.1989 (part of annexure no. 2) filed by Ramnath before the C.O. relinquishing his right and title over the property in question is a matter of scrutiny, which can property be examined by the concerned Courts in a regular proceeding. Matter is still open for the parties, in a regular proceeding, to get their right and title adjudicated before the competent court. S.O.C. and D.D.C., both have discussed the case in detail for the purposes of condoning the delay, which are well considered orders. This Court finds no justification for interfering with the aforesaid orders.
In this conspectus as above, the present writ petition is devoid of merits. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders or any infringement of legal rights of the present petitioners to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with no costs.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 A.P. Pandey/Manish Himwan