Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2026 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hori Lal Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, J. P. Nagar And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 13.4.2018 and 6.7.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the devolution of the estate of one Nanhi. The pedigree admitted by the parties is that Ganga Sahai had three sons, namely, Jai Singh, Chhajju and Jhhau. Ganga Sahai was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots. Nanhi was the widow of Jai Singh and died issueless. Chhajju also died issueless. Vishambhar, Karan Singh and Hori Lal were the sons of Jhhau. One Munni was the daughter of Vishambhar and Rakeshwati, i.e., respondent no. 3 was the widow of Karan Singh. The respondent nos. 4 to 8 are the sons of Munni. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 21.8.2017 held that the estate of Nanhi shall devolve on Hori Lal and the respondents had no right or share in the same. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation through their impugned orders have set-aside the findings of the Consolidation Officer and have held that Vishambhar and Karan Singh, i.e., the predecessor of respondent nos. 4 to 8 had equal share in the estate of Nanhi as they were alive when Nanhi died and, therefore, the respondent nos. 4 to 8 also had share in the estate of Nanhi.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that Nanhi had pre-deceased her father Vishambhar and, therefore, the respondent nos. 3 to 8 could not succeed to the estate of Vishambhar excluding the petitioner by virtue of Section 171(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The fact that Munni had died before her father Vishambhar was not brought on record and the said fact was also not stated in the memorandum of revision filed by the petitioner.
A reading of the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that the fact was not even brought to the notice of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the petitioner. The date of death of Munni is a question of fact which cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a fresh ground challenging the orders passed by the consolidation authorities.
There is no illegality in the orders dated 13.4.2018 and 6.7.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Satyam