BALWANTA vs DDC

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent nos.3 and 4.

Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 20.09.1991, passed by the Consolidation Officer, whereby the application seeking amendment moved by the petitioner in the application for mutation has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.05.1992, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20.09.1991, passed by the Consolidation Officer, was also dismissed.

The land in dispute was, admittedly, recorded in the name of late Chauthi, who during the consolidation operation is said to have expired. The petitioner appears to have moved an application seeking mutation of her name on the basis of succession claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi. Respondent nos.3 and 4 also moved an application seeking mutation of their names on the basis of a will-deed. Both the mutation applications were clubbed together and proceedings thereof have been going on before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner while moving the application seeking mutation which is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition has disclosed the date of death of the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi to be 31.08.1980, however, an application on 29.08.1986 appears to have been moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the said application wherein it was prayed that in the application for mutation in place of 31.08.1980 as the date of death of the tenure holder late Chauthi it should be read as 31.05.1980. The said application was contested by the respondent nos.3 and 4 stating inter alia that the amendment being sought in the application for mutation by the petitioner is after thought and further that if such an amendment is permitted the very nature of the claim of the petitioner shall be altered and hence, such a prayer should not be acceded to. The Consolidation Officer after considering the respective submissions rejected the application moved by the petitioner seeking amendment by means of his order dated 20.09.1991 stating therein that by permitting the amendment in the application for mutation, the same will change the nature of the case and hence, such an amendment should not be permitted. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order dated 20.09.1991 passed by the Consolidation Officer by filing Revision Petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which too, has been dismissed by the revisional court by means of the order dated 19.05.1992. The revisional court has reiterated the reasons given by the Consolidation Officer and did not found merit in the application moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the application moved by her seeking mutation of her name in place of the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record available herein.

So far as the claim of the respective parties for mutation in the holdings in question is concerned, it is noteworthy that both the parties, namely, petitioner as well as respondent nos.3 and 4 have put forth their claims. The petitioner''s claim is based on succession as she is claiming to be the legal heir being the daughter of the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi. So far as the claim of respondent nos.3 and 4 is concerned, they have claimed mutation of their names on the basis of a will-deed said to have been executed by the deceased tenure holder late Chauthi on 03.07.1980. Submission of learned counsel representing the respondent nos.3 and 4 that in case the date of death of late Chauthi is permitted to be altered in the application for mutation from 31.08.1980 to 31.05.1980, their claim based on the will-deed executed on 03.07.1980 will be defeated.

The aforesaid submission of learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 is not tenable for the reason that since both the parties are asserting their respective claims before the Consolidation Officer, as such whatever the case has been pleaded by them or whatever facts have been asserted by them will be required to be proved by the respective parties before the Consolidation Officer. In case the petitioner asserts that date of death of late Chauthi had occurred on 31.05.1980, then she will have to prove and establish the same by leading appropriate and adequate evidence. Similarly, date of death of the deceased late Chauthi as 31.05.1980 is being denied and disputed and it is rather being asserted by respondent nos.3 and 4 that it was during his life time that late Chauthi had executed a will in their favour on 03.07.1980. The said assertion made and the plea taken by the respondent nos.3 and 4 will also be required to be proved in accordance with law relating to evidence. In my opinion, since both the parties will have ample opportunity of leading evidence to prove and establish their respective cases, the amendment sought in the application moved by the petitioner for mutation will not alter the claim or case of the respective parties for the reason that the respective claims will ultimately be required to be proved on the basis of evidence to be adduced by both the parties.

In view of the aforesaid reasons given, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the orders dated 20.09.1991 and 19.05.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer concerned and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad as are contained in annexure nos.5 and 6 respectively are hereby quashed.

The Consolidation Officer concerned is directed to decide the application seeking amendment made by the petitioner afresh. The said application shall be decided within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The entire proceedings pending before the Consolidation Officer shall be expedited and concluded within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with law. It is further directed that neither of the parties to the proceedings pending before the Consolidation Officer shall seek any adjournment and adjournment, if sought, shall be granted only in exceptional circumstances by the Presiding Officer. As this matter is pending before the Consolidation Officer since very long time i.e since the year 1980, the parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 24.04.2017, who shall take cognizance of the order being passed today by this Court and proceed accordingly to decide the matter.

It is clarified that no further notice shall be required to be given by the Consolidation Officer to the parties.

There will be no order as to costs.