NISAR AHMAD & ORS. versus SAMI ULLAH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1855 · Decided: 24-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1855 : 2024 INSC 820
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. 
v. 
Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9739-40 of 2011)
24 October 2024
[Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue as regards the shares of the parties in the disputed land. High 
Court whether justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy 
Director of Consolidation in revision and holding that the appellants 
had 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 
excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged 
to the respondents. Consolidation authorities whether erred in alloting 
1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. 
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – ss.9(2), 
11(1) – High Court held that the appellants had 1/12 share jointly in 
the plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. 
35, 37, 111 and 112 exclusively belonging to the respondents – It 
also held that the consolidation authorities erroneously alloted 
1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on the 
premise that the land was a joint family property:
Held: No error or perversity in the view taken by the High Court – 
The concept of joint family property which is prevalent amongst the 
Hindus is not known amongst the Muslims – Authorities were not 
justified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining the 
share of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans – High 
Court duly considered the claim of the appellants as well as of 
the respondents and held that in so far claim of the appellants to 
plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 of Khata No. 99 and plot No. 115 
of Khata No. 100 were concerned, predecessor-in-interest of the 
appellants himself had relinquished those lands in favour of the 
respondents – Relinquishment deed was registered and was never 
questioned by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants during 
his lifetime – Further, validity of the lease in question cannot be 
disputed by the appellants – High Court concurred with the finding 
* Author
1856
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
recorded by the revisional authority and rightly dismissed the writ 
petition filed by the appellants – Appellants entitled to 1/12 share in 
the land comprised in the lease deed and not 1/2 as was wrongly 
held by consolidation authorities. [Paras 22-24]
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Scheme 
of the Act – Stated.
Case Law Cited
Attar Singh v. State of U.P [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928 : AIR 1959 
SC 564; Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2007 SCC 
OnLine All 2196 – referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
List of Keywords
Co-tenancy; Consolidation Officer; Deputy Director of Consolidation; 
Consolidation authorities; Assistant Settlement Officer; Revisional 
authority Shares of the parties; Common ancestor; Disputed 
land; Disputed khatas; Agricultural holdings; Consolidation of 
Holdings; Concept of joint family property not known amongst 
the Muslims; Hindu law; Mohammedans; Predecessor-in-interest; 
Relinquishment deed; Lease deed; Revision application/petitions; 
No error apparent on the face of record.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 9739-40 
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2009 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 6635 of 1974 and CMWP No. 
18 of 1975
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 194 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
M.Z. Chaudhary, Shariq Zaidi, Aftab Ali Khan, Sayyad Mansoor, 
Ms. Mansi Chahal, Tabarak Hussain, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Shoaid 
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1857
Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
Ahmad Khan, Kapil Sagar, Aftab Ali Khan, Syed Mehdi Imam, Atif 
Shuhrawardy, Tabrez Ahmad, Pankaj Kumar, S.S. Chauhan, Atif 
Suhrawardy, Mrs. Shamama Anis, Pankaj Kumar, Sharad Chauhan, 
Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.	
The two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment 
and order dated 05.01.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 
of 1974 (Nisar Ahmad and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 
Sultanpur and Ors.) and in Writ Petition No.18 of 1975 (Sami Ullah 
and Anr. Vs. Nisar Ahmed and Ors.). B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.