LexMUNESHWAR (DEAD) BY LRS versus RAJA MOHAMMAD KHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•.. i
MUNESHWAR (DEAD) BY LRS.
A
v.
RAJA MOHAMMAD KHAN AND ORS.
AUGUST 20, 1998
(M.K. MUKHERJEE AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
B
Tellallcy and Land Laws :
U.P. Zamilldmi Abolition and Land Ref onns Act, 1950 : Sections 209
md2la
C
Suit filed for pmtition of land under S. 176 decreed-Dwi11g pend ency
of appeal S deposited ten times of the land revellue alld obtailled 'Bhwnidmi
sanad'of the land in his name-Thereafte1; S executed sale deed in favour of
respondents ill respect of the lalld in his share under the decree-Appeal D
agai11st decree dismissed and it became fill al-But decree never executed-Ap-
pellant remained in possession of the land throughout---Respolldents filed suit
for possession under S . 209 after more than 6 years from the date provided
ill Ent1y 30 of Appendix III to the Rules-Suit abated under S. 5 of the
Consolidation Act ill view of notification under S. 4 thereof for b1ingi11g the
land ill the dist1ict under consolidation operations-Then i11 pursuance to S.
9 of the Consolidation Act the appellant brought proceedings before the
Consolidation Officer 011 the grounds that the disputed la11d was wrongly
entered in the 11ames of the respo11dents and that the appellallt was in
possession of the lalld for the last 20 years---Auth01ities under Collsolidation
Act co11cwrently found that it was the appellant who was i11 possessio11 of the
land a11d since the suit under S. 209 was not filed within the pe1iod of
limitatio11 the appella11t became a 'Sirdar' thereof i11 view of S. 21(}-High
Cowt i11 w1it petition filed by responde11ts took the view that the suit :vas filed
within limitation and it abated because of stmt of co11solidation operations
E
F
G
and that 'sirda1i' 1ights did not accnte i11 favour of the appellants and that
even if the respondents could not get possession after final decree no 1ight
accnted in favour of the appellant within that period-Therefore, High Cowt
quashed the order passed by Consolidation Authorities-Held : Since final
decree in the pmtition suit by S could not be executed it is debatable if
recourse could be had to S. 209, particularly when share of S had not bee11
separated and possession always remai11ed with appella11t---Moreover, in the H
53
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A suit for possession under S. 209 no decree was passed as that suit had
abated-Consequences, as given in S. 210 follow when there is failure to file
suit w1~er S. 209 or to execute a decree obtained thereunder-Accordingly,.
the autho1ities under the Consolidation Act concluded that the suit under S.
209 was filed beyond the pe1iod of limitation and conf e1red 'sirda1i' 1ights
B on the appellant-In the circumstances of the case, High Cowt e1red in
inte1f e1i11g in the w1it jwisdiction to upset the concwrent findings of the
auth01ities ·under the Consolidation Act-{}.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953, Ss. 5 and 9--U.P. Zamindmi Abolition and Land Ref om1s Rules, 1952,
E11t1y 30 Appendix-Ill-Constitution of India, 1950, A1t. 226.
C
One S filed a suit for partition of land under Section 176 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which was decreed.
During the pendency of the appeal against the decree, S deposited ten
times of the land revenue and obtained 'Bhumidari sanad, of thdand in
his name. Thereafter, S executed sale deed in favour of the resplmdents in
D respect of the land in his share under the decree. The appeal against the
decree was dismissed and the decree became final. But the decree was
never executed and the appellant remained in possession throughout.
The respondents filed a suit for possession of the land under Section
209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act after more than six years from the date
E provided in Entry 30 of Appendix III to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952. However, the suit abated nuder Section 5 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 vide notification issued under
Section 4 of the Consolidation Act for bringing the land in the district
under consolidation operations. Then in pursuance to Section 9 of the
F Consolidation Act the appellant brought proceedings before the Con-
solidation Officer on the ground that the disputed land was wrongly
entered in the names of the respondents and that the appellant was in
possession of the land for the last twenty years. The authorities under the
Consolidation Act concurrently found that it was the appelExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.