Allahabad High Court
Raj Nath Dubey And Another vs D.D.C. Allahabad And 12 Others on 18 December, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No:- 2024:AHC:197935 Court No. 50 Reserved on: 13.11.2024 Delivered on: 18.12.2024 WRIT - B No. - 3921 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Nath Dubey and Another Respondent :- D.D.C. Allahabad and 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner:- Mr. Ambrish Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Om Narain Tripathi, (respondent no.12/1- in person), Vineet Kumar Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. A.C. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Om Narain Tripathi advocate in person who is impleaded as respondent No. 12/1 in the instant petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plots of khata No. 1, 3, 4, 5, new number are 11 area 0.4643 hectare, 51 area 0.0250 hectare, 52 area 0.4397 hectare, 53 area 0.0050 hectare, 54 area 0.0190 hectare, 55 area 0.1400 hectare, 56 area 0.0350 hectare, 61 kha area 0.0114 hectare, 63 ka area 0.0292 hectare, 65 area 0.0300 hectare, 66 area 0.2900 hectare, 67 ka area 0.0676 hectare, 88 area 0.5939 hectare, 101 ka area 0.0400 hectare, 101 kha area 0.0400 hectare, 78 area 0.5345 hectare, total area 2.7846 hectare situated at village- Sarai Aziz, Taluka- Harikushan, Pergana- Sikandara, Tehusil- Phoolpur, District- Allahabad.
In respect to agricultural holding situated at village- Chak Nuruddinpur @ Nagdilpur, Pergana- Sikandara, Tahsil- Phoolpur, District Allahabad, an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P. C.H. Act“) was filed by Jagan Nath in the year 1965, claiming ½ share being son of Kanhai which was registered as Case No.1716 of 1965-66. The aforementioned case was dismissed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.11.1965. Appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by Jagan Nath was dismissed vide order dated 1.8.1966. Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by Jagan Nath was dismissed vide order dated 29.12.1966. Village Sarai Aziz came under consolidation operation vide notification issued in the year 2001 under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. Act, accordingly, Rajnath Dubey (father of petitioner nos.1/1 to ¼) filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act against basic year entry, claiming ½ share being son of Kanhai. Petitioner No.2/Amar Nath Dubey also filed an application, stating he is also entitled for share in the disputed plot along with his brother Raj Nath Dubey. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.12.2012, rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground of res judicata. Appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by Raj Nath Dubey, was dismissed vide order dated 6.3.2013. Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by Raj Nath Dubey was also dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2013. Petitioners challenged the orders dated 1.12.2012, 6.3.2013, 23.5.2013 through Writ B No.46506 of 2013 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 8.11.2013, setting aside all the three orders passed by the consolidation authorities and remitted the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the objection afresh, considering all the issues involved in the matter rather to decide the dispute considering the issue of res judicata only. Review application filed by contesting respondents was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.1.2014. Contesting respondent filed a Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble Apex Court against the judgment of this Court dated 8.11.2013 and 22.1.2014 which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 6.5.2016. Consolidation Officer heard the matter afresh in persuance of the order of this Court dated 8.11.2013 and the objection of the petitioners was again rejected vide order dated 26.11.2016. Appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioners was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 14.8.2017. Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioners was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 9.3.2018. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for following relief:-
“Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgments and order dated 9.3.2018 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.12), 14.8.2017, passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.9) and 26.11.2016, passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.8).”
3. This Court entertained the matter on 18.5.2018 and directed that third party interest without leave of the Court shall not be created by the parties.
4. In pursuance of the order of this Court, parties have exchanged their pleadings.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the consolidation authorities have not decided the title dispute under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act in proper manner, as such, the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that respondent no.3, the Consolidation Officer, while passing the impugned order dated 9.3.2018, has misread and misinterpreted the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 2355, Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, as such, the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held from time to time that living in relation for a long time and giving birth to a child, raise a presumption of marriage, as such, the right of the petitioners cannot be negated by the consolidation authorities while deciding the title dispute under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act. He further submitted that the petitioners (Jagarnath, Amarnath and Rajnath) were born from the wedlock of Ram Pyari and Kanhai, as such, the claim of the petitioners cannot be rejected by the consolidation authorities on the ground that in the dispute raised in respect to another village, petitioners’ brother has failed to prove that he is son of Kanhai. He also submitted that right of inheritance in tenancy, holding of the illegitimate sons of Shudra (Hindu) has been recognized by the court from time to time, as such, the petitioners’ claim cannot be negated by the consolidation authorities. He also submitted that finding of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities regarding estoppel is contrary to the observation by this court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the writ petition/appeal filed by the parties in respect to the same dispute. He further submitted that there is no estoppel against the law, as such, the petitioners’ claim cannot be ignored by the consolidation authorities in arbitrary manner. He placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
“1. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2422, Groupe Chimique Tunisien SA vs. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corpn. Ltd.;
2. 1969 RD 10, Tej Pal vs. Roop Chand;
3. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 993, Smt. Isabella Johnson vs. M.A. Susai;
4. 2024 Live Law (SC) 48, Raja Gounder and Others vs. M. Sengodan and Others;
5. 2022 7 SCR 1120, Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Others;
6. (2010 INSC 262), M/s M.R.F. Ltd. vs. Manohar Parrikar and Others.”
6. On the other hand, Mr. Om Narain Tripathi, Advocate (respondent no.12/1) appearing in person submitted that all the three courts have recorded finding of fact in holding that petitioners are not entitled to be recorded over the plot in question, being son of Kanhai. He further submitted that earlier dispute raised by the petitioners’ brother in respect to another village, was decided by the consolidation authorities in which it has been held that petitioners’ brother is not entitled to be recorded over the plot in question in place of Kanhai. He further submitted that dispute in respect to another village was decided by the consolidation authorities on 28.11.1965 / 1.8.1966 / 29.12.1966 which had attained finality and no steps have been taken by the petitioners for recording their name since 1966, as such, the title objection filed by the petitioners in respect to the village in question after notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. At after about 41 years from the date of death of Kanhai, has been rightly rejected by the consolidation authorities under the impugned orders. He further submitted petitioners have attained majority in the year 1970, as such, filing of objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act after about 31 years from attaining the age of majority in respect to village in question, cannot be entertained. He submitted that the consolidation authorities have decided the dispute, considering each and every issue framed in the objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, as such, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent judgment passed by all the three courts. He submitted that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
1. 2000 (2) JLJ 176, Ramkali and Another vs. Mahhila Shyamwati and Others;
3. Neutral Citation No.2014:AHC:202413, Chandra Pal vs. D.D.C. and 8 others;
4. (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 612, Neelamma and Others vs. Sarojamma and Others;
5. 1964 Law Suit (SC) 81, Gulraj Singh vs. Mota Singh;
6. Neutral Citation No.2006:AHC7460, Mangaroo and Others vs. Ram Sumer and Others.”
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the title objection filed by the petitioners’ brother under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act in respect to another village, was decided against the petitioners’ brother, holding that petitioners’ brother is not son of Kanhai. There is also no dispute about the fact that in respect to the village in question, the title objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has been dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and order has been maintained in appeal as well as in revision.
9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the issues framed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer on 26.11.2016, will be relevant, which is as under:-
“न्यायालय चकबन्दी अधिकारी-राहसो, इलाहाबाद।
वाद सं0-149 /2016
धारा 9क (2) उ०प्र० जोत चकबन्दी अधिनियम
राजनाथ दुबे आदि बनाम अयोध्या प्रसाद आदि
ग्राम- सराय अजीज तालुका हरिकिशुन
परगना-सिकन्दरा तहसील-फूलपुर
जिला-इलाहाबाद।
:: निर्णयदेश :: दिनांक 26.11.2016
पत्रावली में दिनांक 30.04.05 को निम्नवाद बिन्दु निर्मित हुआ-
1. क्या वादी राजनाथ विवादित खाता संख्या … के सह खातेदार है?
2. क्या वादी के उत्तराधिकारी के सम्बंध में चकबन्दी अधिकारी कमलानगर खाता वाद सं0 1766/1965 अमरनाथ बनाम अयोध्या प्रसाद दिनांक 28.12.1965 को निर्णय किया जा चुका है। यदि हॉ तो उसका प्रभाव ?
3. क्या उत्तराधिकार के बावत प्राप्त न्याय का सिद्धान्त प्रभावी है?
4. क्या खाता 01 के तनहा मालिका काबिज अयोध्या प्रसाद थे, उन्होंने सम्पत्ति को बेच दिया। खाता 03 के मालिक काबिज देवेन्द्र कुमार आदि है?
5. क्या खाता सं0-03 के वर्तमान खातेदार अयोध्या प्रसाद आदि के स्थगन पर रीता दुबे व किरन दुबे का 1/3 अंश व 1/6 है।
6. क्या राजनाथ पुत्र कन्धई सजरा खानदान के बउसार खाता उपरोक्त में 1/2 अंश के सह खातेदार है? यदि हॉ तो उसका प्रभाव ?
7. क्या विवादित भूमि में राजनाथ के साथ उनके सगे भाई अमरनाथ व जगन्नाथ बराबर अंश के हिस्सेदार है? तदनुसार ही काबिज है?
8. क्या विवादित भूमि उभय पक्षो की पैतृक है?
9. पक्षो का अंश क्या है?
रामनाथ की आपत्ति विचाराधीन रही, इस बीच अमरनाथ की आपत्ति आने पर दिनांक 22.01.11 को निम्नलिखित अतिरिक्त वाद बिन्दु बनाया गया।
10. क्या विवादित भूमि अयोध्या प्रसाद आदि की तनहा है?
11. क्या अयोध्या प्रसाद मृतक के वारिस किरन दुबे आदि है?
12. क्या विवादित भूमि पर सहखातेदारी का प्रस्ताव गलत व फर्जी है।
13. पक्षो का अंश क्या है?
14. क्या दावा वादी राजनाथ गलत व फर्जी है?
15. क्या अराजी निजाई पूर्वजो द्वारा पैदा कर्ता भूमि है और आपत्तिकर्तागण राजनाथ खाता सं0-01, 03, 04 व 05 में 1/2 अंश के सहखातेदार है? प्रभाव ?
उभय पक्षों के विद्वान अधिवक्ताओं के तर्कों पर विचार किया गया तथा वादपत्रों व प्रतिवाद पत्र में उल्लिखित तथ्यों एवं प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों का सम्यक अवलोकन एवं परिषीलन किया गया। उभय पक्षों के बीच दो बिन्दु विवादित है- (1) क्या रामनाथ, अमरनाथ, जगन्नाथ कन्धई की वैध संतान है? (2) क्या राम प्यारी कन्धई की विवाहिता पत्नी है?
उक्त के सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय तथ्य यह है कि अन्य ग्राम गारापुर तथा ग्राम चकनुरूद्दीनपुर में दौरान चकबन्दी उभय पक्षो के बीच हुयी वाद हेतुक (Issue) का वाद चकबन्दी अधिकारी से लेकर उप संचालक चकबन्दी स्तर तक निर्णय हो चुका है जोकि साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा-215 स्टापेल का प्रभाव रखता है तथा वादीगण का दावा उक्त प्रार्थी के निर्णय से प्रभावित है। इन निर्णयों को कदापि वादीगण ने अपने ब्यान में जानकारी होने से इंकार किया है लेकिन उसके अस्तित्व को इस लिए इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता क्योंकि उन्होंने उक्त ग्रामो की भूमि के बावत कोई स्वत्वाधिकार/सहखातेदारी नहीं पाया तो इसका क्या कारण है? स्वाभाविक है कि उन्होंने आपत्ति प्रस्तुत किया था और निगरानी स्तर तक पराजित हुए है। इसके अतिरिक्त सन् 2013 में जो रिट याचिका सं0-46506/2013 में इन पूर्व पारित निर्णयों का हवाला दिया गया है। जिसके विरुद्ध आगामी कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी। ऐसी स्थिति में स्टापेल के नियम से वादीगण का दावा बाधित है। इस प्रकार वाद बिन्दु सं०-02 सकारात्मक निर्णीत किया जाता है।
जहां तक वाद-बिन्दु सं0-01 व 02 का सम्बंध है। राजनाथ आदि का कथन है कि ये सम्पत्ति पैतृक है। 1359फ० वर्ष में अन्य खातेदारों के साथ कन्धई का नाम अंकित है। ग्राम चकनिरुद्दीन उर्फ वकदिलपुर की चकबंदी के दौरान चकबन्दी अधिकारी से लेकर उप संचालक चकबन्दी न्यायालय तक अंतिम रूप से यह निर्णय हो चुका है कि राजनाथ आदि कन्धई के वैध संलग्न नहीं है। इन निर्णयों के साथ-साथ रामप्यारी द्वारा निस्पादित वसीयतनामा से भी स्पष्ट है कि वह बन्धई के बेवा नहीं है बल्कि रामनाथ के बेवा है तथा हरी वसीयतनामा में रामप्यारी द्वारा राजनाथ आदि को बचपन से पालना बताया है तथा पूर्व निर्णय में श्रीमती रामप्यारी द्वारा बयान दिया गया कि जगन्नाथ व अमरनाथ व राजनाथ की मां का नाम झुलरी है। जगन्नाथ, अमरनाथ, राजनाथ द्वारा पूर्व में हुई न्यायालय कार्यवाही में अपनी माता का नाम झुलरी व पिता का नाम कन्धई बताया गया। जबकि पूर्व न्यायालय में यह निर्णय अंतिम हो चुका है कि झुलरी नाम की कोई महिला नहीं थी तथा कन्धई अविवाहित थे।
जबकि वर्तमान वाद में वादीगण का यह कथन है कि रामप्यारी उनकी माता है। वादीगण का यह कथन है कि रामप्यारी उनकी माता है। स्वाभाविक है कि रामप्यारी रामनाथ की बेवा है। धारा-171 जेड०ए० में मृतक के पुत्र को वरीयता, दिया गया है लेकिन अधिनियम में कहीं भी पुत्र की परिभाषा नहीं दिया गया है। सामान्यतः जहाँ पर पुत्र की विशेष परिभाषा/व्याख्या नहीं दी गयी है। वहाँ पुत्र का तात्पर्य नैसर्गिक पुत्र व दस्तक पुत्र हो सकता है। इस सम्बंध में मा० सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की पांच न्यायमूर्तियों की पीठ ने अपने निर्णय दिनांक 13.03.1964 गुलजार बनाम मोटा सिंह में दिया कि -The Words “son or daughter is meant only a legitimate son and a legitimate of the female vendor.”
उसी तरह मा० सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने अपने अन्य निर्णय दिनांक 17. 12.1996 K.U. Muthu V/s Anga Muthu Ammal में यह स्पष्ट किया कि- “Son” as understood in common parlance means a natural son born to a person after marriage it is the direct blood relationship which is the essence of the term in which “Son” is usually understood emphasis being on legitimacy. In legal parlance, however, “son” has a little wider connotation. It may include not only the natural son but also son’s son’ namely, the grand child and where the personal law permits adoption, it also includes an adopted son.”
चकबन्दी अधिकारी कमला नगर का पूर्व निर्णय बाध्यता/स्टापेस का प्रभाव रखता है। जिसको मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय ने स्वीकार किया है क्योंकि उक्त निर्णय को मात्र इन्कार करना पर्याप्त नहीं है, जबकि स्पष्ट साक्षियों द्वारा उसके प्रभाव को इन्कार करना स्पष्ट है। प्रश्नगत ग्राम की चकबन्दी सन् 2001 में शुरू हुई। जबकि कन्धई की मृत्यु सन् 1960 में हुई, वह तथ्य दोनो पक्षो को स्वीकार है। कन्धई की मृत्यु के बाद अन्य ग्राम में इसी वाद बिन्दु का चकबन्दी अधिकारी से लेकर उप संचालक चकबन्दी स्तर तक जो निर्णय अंतिम हो चुका है वह उभय पक्षो पर स्टापेल का प्रभाव रखता है तथा प्रश्नगत वाद में वादीगण का दावा स्टापेल का प्रभाव रखता है। अमरनाथ ने अपने बयान में उम्र 63 वर्ष बताया है जबकि इनके द्वारा दाखिल हाई स्कूल के सर्टीफिकेट में उम्र 1948 जबकि कुटुम्ब रजिस्टर में 1942 अंकित है। कुटुम्ब रजिस्टर के अनुसार इनकी उम्र लगभग 74 वर्ष होती है। इनके द्वारा यह साबित करने का प्रयास किया गया है कि वह पूर्व चकबन्दी प्रक्रिया के दौरान नाबालिग थे। स्वाभाविक है कि अमरनाथ आदि द्वारा तथ्यों को सुविधानुसार अपने पक्ष में बताने का प्रयास किया गया है। इस प्रकार प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों व तथ्यों से स्पष्ट है कि वादीगण कन्धई की वैध संतान नहीं है तथा उन्हें कन्धई की पुश्तैनी आराजी में बतौर सहखातेदार हिस्सा नहीं मिल सकता है। इसके अलावा इनका दावा स्टापेल द्वारा से बाधित है। तद्नुसार दावा वादीगण निरस्त करने योग्य है।
इस प्रकार वाद बिन्दु सं0-01 व 04 लगायत 16 उसी अनुसार निस्तारित किये जाते है।
:: आदेश ::
उपरोक्तानुसार वादीगण राजनाथ व अमर नाथ की आपत्ति बावत सहखातेदारी निरस्त की जाती है। वाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही पत्रावली दाखिल दफतर हो।
ह० अपठनीय
26/11/2016
सुभाष चन्द्र तिवारी
चकबन्दी अधिकारी,
सहसो, इलाहाबाद।”
10. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer as quoted above, fully demonstrate that issue framed before the Consolidation Officer has been taken into consideration by the Consolidation Officer while deciding the title objection in holding that petitioners cannot be given right to be recorded over the plot in question as sons of Kanhai.
11. The finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer, has been maintained in appeal and revision, as such, there is no scope for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent judgment of the consolidation authorities.
12. It is also material that in respect to another village, the dispute has been decided holding that petitioners’ brother is not son of Kanhai and no steps have been taken by the petitioners, even after attaining the age of majority rather for the first time, the objection has been filed in the year 2001 when the village in question has came under consolidation operation.
13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nelamma and Others (supra) has held that illegitimate child cannot acquire/claim as of right any share in joint Hindu family property. Paragraph nos.2, 3 & 4 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Neelamma and Others (supra) will be relevant for perusal which are as under:-
2. The point involved in the present case is as to whether an illegitimate child can acquire/claim as of right a share in the joint Hindu family property.
“3. The High Court relying upon the judgment of a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Nirmalamma v. G. Seethapathi, has held that under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), the illegitimate child would be entitled to succeed/claim a share in the joint Hindu family property as well. This view of the High Court is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi. In the said case this Court, interpreting the same provisions of the Act, has come to the conclusion that an illegitimate child cannot succeed/claim a share in the joint Hindu family property. Such illegitimate child would only be entitled to a share in the self-acquired property of the parents. It has been observed:-
“5. So far as Section 16 of the Act is concerned, though it was enacted to legitimate children, who would otherwise suffer by becoming illegitimate, at the same time it expressly provides in sub-section (3) by engrafting a provision with a non obstance clause stipulating specifically that nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage, which is null and void or which in annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, ‘any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents. In the light of such an express mandate of the legislature itself, there is no room for according upon such children who but for Section 16 would have been branded as illegitimate any further rights than envisaged therein by resorting to any presumptive or inferential process of reasoning, having recourse to the mere object or purpose of enacting Section 16 of the Act. Any attempt to do so would amount to doing not only violence to the provision specifically engrafted in sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act but also would amount to court relegislating on the subject under the guise of interpretation, against even the will expressed in the enactment itself. Consequently, we are unable to countenance the submissions on behalf of the appellants. The view taken by the courts below cannot be considered to suffer from any serious infirmity to call for our interference, in this appeal.”
4. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is accepted and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”
14. The consolidation authorities have decided the entire dispute, considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, as such, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities.
15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, no interference is required against the impugned orders.
16. The writ petition is dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.12.2024
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)