Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 30462 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Murti Devi Respondent :- Addl. Collector And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Sachan,Ashwani Kumar Sachan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M N Singh,Manvendra Nath Singh,Vivek Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Supplementary affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, are taken on record.
2. Heard Shri A.K. Sachan and Shri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Jasvir Singh Man and Shri V.K. Singh, Advocates, assisted by Shri M.N. Singh, Advocate representing respondent No. 3.
3. The facts of the case are that one Nyathar Singh had three sons Charan Singh, Hosiyar Singh and Surajmal. It is the admitted case of the parties that the three sons of Nyathar Singh had 1/3 share in his estate and Nyathar Singh was the original tenure holder of the of the plots constituting Chak No. 155. Kripalo was the widow of Surajmal and had two daughters Satyawati and Rakesh Kumari. Hosiyar Singh died issueless. Charan Singh had two sons Rajveer Singh and Mahaveer Singh. The petitioner is the widow of Mahaveer Singh while respondent No. 3 is the widow of Rajveer Singh. Vikas was the son of respondent No. 3. It would be relevant to note that the petitioner alleges to have purchased the share of Hosiyar Singh, i.e., the second son of Nyathar Singh and the respondent No. 3 inherited the share of Vikas in Chak Nos. 111 and 155.
4. During the consolidation proceedings a dispute arose regarding the devolution of share of Kripalo in Chak Nos. 111 and 155. It was admitted by the parties during the course of argument on the previous date that the share of Kripalo in the estate of Nyathar Singh had been separated during the consolidation proceedings and separate chaks were allotted to her and so far as Chak No. 111 was concerned, Kripalo was the sole chak holder of the aforesaid chak. However, and this has also been admitted by the counsel for the parties, so far as Chak No. 155 was concerned, the said chak consisted of Plot Nos. 853, 854, 873 and 909 which were chucked out from the consolidation operations, and there was no partition of the said plots between the parties and thus Charan Singh, Hosiyar Singh and Kripalo, as the widow of Surajmal had 1/3 share each in Chak No. 155. In their supplementary affidavits filed today, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 have accepted the aforesaid admissions made by their counsel. The dispute regarding the devolution of share of Kripalo was between Vikas, i.e., the son of respondent No. 3 and Satyawati, i.e., the daughter of Kripalo. Vikas claimed succession to Kripalo on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by her in his favour while Satyawati, being the daughter of Kripalo, claimed succession under Section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950'). The claim of Satyawati was rejected by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 19.2.1981 and the claim of Vikas was accepted. By his order dated 19.2.1981, the Assistant Director of Consolidation directed that the name of Vikas be recorded in the consolidation records in place of Kripalo. The order dated 19.2.1981 was passed in Revision No. 1751, 1752 and 1753, which were heard and decided together by the Assistant Director of Consolidation.
5. A reading of the order dated 19.2.1981 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation shows that in place Chak Nos. 111 and 155, the disputed plots were recorded as Khata Nos. 111 and 155. The aforesaid was a typing error which for certain reasons the parties could not get corrected. It was admitted by the counsel for the parties during the course of argument that reference to Khata Nos. 111 and 155 is a typing error and the decision by the Assistant Director of Consolidation was regarding Chak Nos. 111 and 155. The typing error in the order dated 19.2.1981 which could not get corrected subsequently resulted in mistakes in C.H. Form 45. Khata No. 147 in C.H. Form 45 included Chak Nos. 111 and 155 and all the sons and descendants of Nyathar Singh were shown as co-tenure holders of Khata No. 147. The said entry in C.H. Form 45 was evidently erroneous and a result of some clerical error arising probably due to typing error in the order dated 19.2.1981 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation as admittedly Kripalo was the sole chak holder of Chak No. 111, but had only 1/3 share in Chak No. 155. Ordinarily, there should have been different Khatas for Chak No. 111 and Chak No. 155. It appears that the errors in C.H. Form 45 was also not noticed by the concerned parties and the consolidation department and the error continued in the revenue records prepared subsequently.
6. Subsequently an order dated 19.12.1981 purporting to be passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1954') directing that Vikas be recorded as the sole tenure holder of Khata No. 147 was incorporated in the revenue records. The order dated 19.12.1981 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer is not on record. There is dispute between the parties regarding the existence of any such order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It has been stated by the counsel for respondent No. 3 that the recital in the revenue records regarding the order dated 19.12.1981 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was only a clerical mistake and it should have been order dated 19.2.1981 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation.The case of the petitioner is that recital regarding the order passed under Rule 109-A of the Rules, 1954 is a forgery in the revenue records as no such order under Rule 109-A of the Rules, 1954 was passed and the order dated 19.2.1981 of the Assistant Director was not passed under Rule 109-A of the Rules, 1954. For the reasons to be stated subsequently and because of the order proposed to be passed, the controversy regarding the recital referring to the order passed under Rule 109-A of the Rules, 1954 is not relevant for a decision of the present writ petition. The recital acknowledged the existence of an order holding that Vikas was entitled to be recorded as sole tenure holder of Khata No. 147. The effect of the recital was that the subsequent revenue records would have reflected Vikas as the sole tenure holder of not only Chak No. 111 but also of Chak No. 155. As the aforesaid recital in the revenue records adversely affected the rights of the petitioner because any entry regarding Khata No. 147 also affected the title of the parties on Chak No. 155 which was included in Khata No. 147 in C.H. Form 45, albeit-erroneously, therefore, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 17 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') challenging the aforesaid recital in the revenue records.
7. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 20.10.2016 allowed Appeal No. 17 filed by the petitioner after recording a finding that the entry in the revenue record reciting the order passed under Rule 109-A of the Rules, 1954 was suspicious and no such order had been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed Revision No. 9/16 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), which has been allowed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) acting as the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') vide his order dated 12.6.2017. In his order dated 12.6.2017, the D.D.C. has noticed the order dated 19.2.1981 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation holding Vikas to be the sole successor of Kripalo on the basis of the Will executed by Kripalo. In his order dated 12.6.2017, the D.D.C. has also held that there were some errors regarding the designation of the officer and date of the order in the revenue records as well as regarding the case number in which the order was passed and other materials, which required to be corrected. The D.D.C., therefore, through his order dated 12.6.2017 directed the concerned authority to make appropriate corrections in the revenue records.
8. The order dated 12.6.2017 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
9. The facts narrated above, would show that there is no dispute between the parties so far as their title and share over Chak Nos. 111 and 155 are concerned. It is admitted by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 as the mother of Vikas is the sole tenure holder of Chak No. 111 and it is also admitted by respondent No. 3 that the petitioner as a vendee of Hosiyar Singh had 1/3 share in Chak No. 155, in addition to her share in Chak No. 155 which devolved on her as widow of Mahaveer Singh, i.e., the son of Charan Singh. It is apparent that the dispute between the parties has arisen because of the negligence of consolidation department in preparing C.H. Form 45 and due to failure of parties to get the order dated 19.2.1981 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, whereby Chak Nos. 111 and 155 were recorded as Khata Nos. 111 and 155 as well as C.H. Form 45 corrected in time. Chak Nos. 111 and 155 should have been recorded in different Khatas as Kripalo and subsequently Vikas was the sole tenure holder of Chak No. 111 while the descendants, i.e., the three sons, of Nyathar Singh had 1/3 share each in Chak No. 155. Consequently, Kripalo as the widow of one of the sons of Nyathar Singh had only 1/3 share in Chak No. 155, and therefore, Vikas, on the basis of Will executed by Kripalo in his favour, also got only 1/3 share in Chak no. 155 after the death of Kripalo. The order dated 12.6.2017 passed by the D.D.C., though acknowledges the errors in the records prepared during the consolidation operations, fails to rectify them which ought to be corrected by the consolidation officer or the concerned revenue officer and has left the matter open.
10. The absence of a categorical finding by the D.D.C. in his order dated 12.6.2017 so far as the errors in the consolidation and revenue records are concerned may again result in confusions while correcting the relevant records and give rise to unnecessary litigation between the parties, and therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hapur, i.e., respondent No. 1 to record a categorical finding in light of the observations made in the present judgement and direct the subordinate officers to correct the relevant revenue records accordingly.
11. The order dated 12.6.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hapur, i.e., respondent No. 1 is set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hapur, is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and shall ensure that the relevant records are appropriately corrected showing Vikas and consequently respondent No. 3 to be the sole tenure holder of Chak No. 111 and Vikas as having only 1/3 share in Chak No. 155. It is clarified that any decision in the present writ petition does not decide the share of the parties regarding devolution of interest of Charan Singh either by succession, gift or Will executed by the deceased Charan Singh.
12. It appears that the parties are apprehensive of loosing their title and share over Chak Nos. 111 and 155 because of the errors in the revenue entries specifically because of the errors in C.H. Form 45, therefore, till fresh orders are passed, parties shall maintain status quo regarding the disputed chaks.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is
allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019/Anurag/-