Sita Devi vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,District Jaunpur and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th July, 1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, respondent No. 1 whereby the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been directed to be mutated in the revenue records.

The facts, in brief, are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed application for mutation of their names in the revenue records before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the allegation that Budhi Ram had executed a saledeed in respect of the land in dispute on 16th August, 1975 in their favour and their names should be recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner, claiming herself as daughter of Budhi Ram, filed objection denying that any saledeed was executed by Budhi Ram as alleged by respondents No. 2 and 3. It was further contended that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had granted permission on 7th August, 1975 for execution of the saledeed with a condition that the saledeed could be executed within one week but the saledeed was executed on 16th August, 1975 and in these circumstances the execution of the saledeed shall be taken to have been done without obtaining permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as provided under Section 5(1)(c) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application of the respondents by order dated 15th June, 1981 on the ground that respondents had not filed any affidavit indicating that they did not possess more than 12� acres of land and secondly, the saledeed was executed after the time prescribed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation for execution of the saledeed.

The respondents filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The appeal was dismissed on 1771982. They further preferred revision against the said order. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision by order dated 30th July, 1986. It was held that the saledeed was validly executed. The respondents filed affidavit indicating that they did not possess more than 121/2 acres of land. The delay of two days in execution of the saledeed was explained. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

Sri S.K. Srivasatava, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Settlement Officer Consolidation granted permission on 7th August, 1975 with the condition that the saledeed shall be executed within one week but it was executed on 16th August, 1975 i.e. after two days beyond the time fixed for execution of the saledeed and as such it should be treated as void.

Respondent No. 1 has considered this aspect in detail. He accepted the explanation given by respondents that on 14th August, 1975 the Deputy Director of Consolidation had come in the village for making inspection and on the said date it become difficult to get the saledeed executed and 15th August, 1975 was a public holiday. In these circumstances the saledeed was rightly executed on 16th August, 1975. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was substantially complied with.

In case the permission is granted to execute the saledeed within a specified period and it has not been executed within that period but the vendees indicate the circumstances on account of which the delay occurred and if it is not on account of their conduct, the saledeed executed after the period fixed for its execution cannot be held to be void for want of permission as provided under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act. The intention of the legislature was that the saledeed should be executed with the permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation so that the consolidation proceedings should not be jeopardised in the carvation of chaks. In Lalji v. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 1983 ALJ 349, it was held that the purpose of grant of permission by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the proposed transfer of the land under Section 5(1)(c) is that the transfer does not have adverse effect on the consolidation scheme. Respondent No. 1 has found that the vendees were not in any way guilty of laches. The saledeed obtained by them cannot be treated as invalid.

The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 did not record any finding as to whether saledeed was in fact executed. It is urged that the petitioner has denied execution of the saledeed and no specific finding has been given by respondent No. 1.

The respondents had produced Raj Nath son of respondent No. 3. He had proved the execution of the saledeed. A copy of his statement has been annexed as Annexure2 to the writ petition. In the crossexamination there is no suggestion that the saledeed does not contain signature of Budhi Ram. He proved that the sale consideration was paid to Budhi Ram. Respondents also produced Algoo, the witness of the saledeed. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that the saledeed did not contain that signature of Budhi Ram. Budhi Ram had applied for permission to sell the land before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that Budhi Ram did not file any application for grant of permission and such permission was fictitiously obtained. In absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be held that Budhi Ram did not execute the saledeed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision Ram Kishor and others v. D.D.C. and others, 1986 ACJ 304, in support of his submission that the consolidation authorities must consider the entire evidence. The petitioners have not filed any copy of the evidence indicating that Budhi Ram did not put his signature on the saledeed and in absence of such evidence it cannot be held that the saledeed was not executed by him.

There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.