Krishna Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by Krishna Lal against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 5th June, 1989, whereby his appeal filed by Krishna Lal being Ceiling Appeal No. 1/125 of 1987 has been dismissed as also against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 14th July, 1987. It has been held that the property in question is to be treated as that of Ram Avtar exclusively and the issue raised by the Petitioner qua his being the title holder on the strength of a will executed by Purshottam son of Jaddu, owner of the property earlier has not been examined on merits.

I have examined the records of the present writ petition.

The broad factual position in the matter is as follows:

One Pushottam son of Jaddu was the tenure holder of the land in question. He died on 16th March, 1970. A notice u/s 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act, 1960''), was issued against Purshottam but when it was discovered that he had expired, a fresh notice was issued in the name of Respondent No. 4, i.e. Ram Avtar treating him, as heir of the deceased. In mutation proceedings, he was found to be heir of the deceased and in possession of the land in question. The matter travelled up to Board of Revenue. The proceedings were contested by present Petitioner, Krishna Lal claiming that the deceased had executed a will in his favor on 28th May, 1968. The Board of Revenue in the mutation proceedings rejected the claim of present Petitioner based on the Will and confirmed the orders of the authorities below, qua Ram Avatar entitled to be mutated in place of deceased Purshottam.

The mutation proceedings, being summary proceedings in nature, the present Petitioner filed a suit u/s 299-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. That suit abated because in the meantime consolidation proceedings commenced in respect of the village. It is contended that the matter is pending before Consolidation Authorities even today.

While entertaining the present writ petition the Court on 1st August, 1989 noticed the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel that some orders have already been passed by the Consolidation Authorities. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner took time to obtain instructions. However, as on date, there is nothing on record which could disclose, as to what final orders have been passed by the Consolidation Authorities in the proceeding initiated by the present Petitioner on the basis of Will executed by Purshottam.

On behalf of the Petitioner it has been contended that irrespective of the proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1953), it was necessary for the Ceiling Authorities to have examined the impact of the will and to have satisfied themselves as to whether the Will was a genuine document and therefore, Petitioner was to be treated as the recorded tenure holder. Purshottam expired on 16th March, 1970 i.e. much prior to the relevant date to be precise 6th August, 1973. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner therefore submits that in absence of any adjudication have been made by the Consolidation Authorities qua right/ title claimed by the Petitioner over the property in question on the strength of the will executed by Purshottam on 16th May, 1968, his rights could not have been foreclosed by merely observing that the decision of the Consolidation Authorities would be binding upon the Ceiling Authorities. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case ofRam Charan v. State of U.P. reported in 1979 A.L.J. 166, and in the case of Vijay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 1986 A.L.J. 904.

Learned Standing Counsel in reply submits that the Appellate Authority has specifically observed in the order impugned that if any decision is made in favor of the present petition, Krishna Lal by a Competent Court, then appropriate action shall be taken. Appropriate Courts in the facts of the present case are the Authorities under the Act, 1953.

Sri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that under the order impugned two appeals were decided. The first filed by Ram Avtar against whom, the Petitioner has been contesting on the strength of the Will has been allowed and the matter has been remanded for decision afresh in respect of the issue as to whether the land is to be treated as irrigated or un-irrigated qua the various plots mentioned in the order itself. Further that in all likelihood by this time, the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities must have also come to an end.

In view of the same, it would be in the interest of justice to direct that the issue as to whether the Petitioner had any right or tile over the property in question on the basis of will executed by Purshottam may be reconsidered by the Prescribed Authority on the basis of the orders which may have been passed by the Consolidation Authorities as has been noticed in the appellate order itself.

In case the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities have not been finally decided till date, the Prescribed Authority shall permit the Petitioner to lead all such evidence as he may be advised and to raise all other issues, as may be open to the Petitioner, in support of his case based on the will. The Prescribed Authority may thereafter determine the dispute in accordance with law. The proceedings shall be concluded within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Prescribed Authority provided the proceedings after remand have not already been decided by the Prescribed Authority.

The present writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.