Abdul Bari vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,Allahabad & Ors.

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14180 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. Mohd. Outran filed objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming that Nizamuddin had obtained Bhumidhari Sanad in the year 1950 in his favour and also in the name of Mohd. Gurfan, objector, but later on the found that the name of Mohd. Gurfan was not shown as cotenure holder. Nizamuddin executed a saledeed dated 23367 in his favour.

Another objection was filed by that he taxation 74 executed by sons of Nizamuddin. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal before the settlement officer consolidation. The settlement officer consolidation allowed the appeal on 6978. Mohd. Gurfan, respondent No. 4 filed revision against the order dated 6978 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, The revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 141 80 holding that the saledeed executed in favour of Mohd. Gurfan was valid and he will get the right over the land in dispute.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that Nizamuddin was the tenureholder of the land in dispute. He had executed a saledeed in favour of Mohd. Gurfan on 23367. The petitioner is claiming right on the basis of the saledeed dated 1574 executed by the sons of Nizamuddin. In case the sale deed executed by Nizamuddin is valid in favour of Mohd. Gurfan, the petitioner shall not get any right on the basis of the saledeed dated 1574. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mohd. Gurfan had not filed the original saledeed. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the original saledeed was lost and to prove this fact an affidavit was filed and also the other evidence was also led. If the original document is lost and it is proved, the Court or authority can rely upon the secondary evidence. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1 has not recorded any specific finding as to whether the original saledeed which was in possession of Mohd. Gurfan, was lost.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14180 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 will record the findings afresh in view of the observations made above. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.