Ram Kishore vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Allahabad And Others

Heard Shri Rajeev Misra for the applicant and Shri Subedar Mishra for the respondent, in this review application, filed for review of the judgment dated 7.3.2017. The contention of Shri Rajeev Misra is that the applicant, Ram Kishor is the son of one Kamali. Before the consolidation courts, his claim, in his objection under Section 12 of the Act, was on the basis of a sale-deed in favour of Ram Adhar, his father, executed by Sukh Dev, the recorded tenure-holder.

This claim was rejected on the ground that the sale-deed had been executed regarding land over which the vendor was recorded as a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and the sale-deed was executed without obtaining prior permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

It is submitted that once the sale-deed had been discarded, the land in question would devolve by succession. Another objection had been filed by one of the daughters of Sukh Dev, stating that she and her sister, Kamali, mother of the petitioner applicant succeeded to the land in question.

Therefore, in case, the sale-deed, claimed by the petitioner-applicant, was being discarded, he would still get a share in the disputed land having inherited the share, which came to his mother, Kamali, as successor and daughter of Sukh Dev along with her sister.

Shri Subedar Mishra, on the contrary, submitted that the mother of the petitioner-applicant inherited as the daughter of Sukhdev and, therefore, on her death, succession to her share would be governed by Section 172 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. On the death of Kamali, her share would, in accordance with this Section, devolve upon her surviving sister and not upon her son. Therefore, the review application is without substance and must be dismissed.

Upon a consideration of the submissions, I find the submission of counsel for the respondent to have force. The petitioner-applicant had contested the proceedings claiming on the basis of a sale-deed executed by Sukh Dev in favour of his father. This sale-deed has been discarded by cogent reasons. By dismissal of the writ petition, this claim has been finally negatived. The review application has been filed raising an alternative plea, which does not appear to have been raised at any stage, earlier and is being raised for the first time in the review application.

However, as already observed, it has rightly been submitted by Shri Subedar Mishra that even if the petitioner-applicant''s mother had inherited half share in the land in question on the basis of succession, on her death, succession to her share would be governed by Section 172 of the UPZA & LR Act and it would devolve upon her sister. Therefore, the petitioner-applicant would not be entitled to any share in the land in question on the ground that he was the son and successor of Kamali. He would not be a successor of his mother regarding land, which his mother had inherited as a daughter of Sukh Dev on his death. The review application is, therefore, without substance and the order dated 7.3.2017, is not liable to be reviewed. The review application is, accordingly, dismissed.