Sati Prasad and Another vs The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

R.M. Sahai, J.—In this petition directed against order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation the only controversy that arises for consideration is whether opposite parties who admittedly were tenure-holders of land in dispute could have mortgaged the land in favour of petitioner after abolition of zamindari. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that petitioners were entered in possession from 1366F to 1375F (1958-59 to 1967-68) which was not denied by opposite parties but they claimed that possession was permissive as it was mortgaged with petitioners for a period of five years in 1963. On this finding it is obvious that the right, interest of title of opposite patties stood extinguished as is clear from a combined reading of Section 164 read with Section 154 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1951. Section 164 provides that a transfer of any holding or part thereof made by a Bhumidhar by which possession is transferred to the transferee for purposes of securing any payment of money advanced shall be deemed to be sale to the transferee and to every such sale the provisions of Section 154 shall be applicable. As it was admitted by opposite parties that they had mortgaged the land with petitioners in 1963 it is obvious that by operation of law it became a sale in favour of petitioner. u/s 154 the petitioners became entitled to land in dispute and the right, title and interest vested in them. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the claim of petitioners.

In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. As nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents there shall be no order as to costs.