Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently upheld an order passed by the Allahabad High Court that set aside the order of the consolidation authorities in Uttar Pradesh to resolve a dispute with regard to share in lands by treating it as a joint family property and importing principle of Hindu law for the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, found no fault with the High Court's approach. They affirmed that the 2010 decision was based on a thorough examination of evidence, involving complex claims and counterclaims by both parties.

Rejecting the appeal from Nisar Ahmad and others, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision granting them a 1/12 share of the disputed land in Sultanpur district, rather than the 1/2 share mistakenly assigned by the consolidation authorities.

The court noted the dispute was between the legal heirs of Shakoor i.e. the appellants and the legal heirs of Ghafoor i.e. the respondents. It pointed out that the High Court had duly considered the claim of the appellants as well as of the respondents and had taken the view 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, Zahoor Ahmed himself had relinquished those lands in favour of the respondents. 

"Relinquishment deed is a registered one and was never questioned by Zahoor Ahmed during his lifetime. In that view of the matter, the High Court concurred with the finding recorded by the revisional authority and rightly dismissed writ petition filed by the appellants," the court noted.

The respondents had also filed a writ petition being aggrieved by the declaration made by the consolidation authorities that the appellant would get half (1/2) share in the plots comprised in Khata Nos 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos 35, 57, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged to the respondents. 

The court pointed out that the High Court took the view that consolidation authorities had erroneously proceeded to allot half (1/2) share to Zahoor Ahmed on the premise that the land was a joint family property. High Court held that the authorities were not justified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining the share of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans, it noted.

"We are of the view that there is no merit in the two civil appeals which are accordingly dismissed," the bench said.

In its judgment, the top court also discussed the scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 enacted to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture. 

The court noted that as per the statement of objects and reasons, after the enforcement of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, there arose the need for consolidation of holdings in the State. It was felt that the advantages of having compact blocks of all the lands farmed by one family were too well known.

"The 1953 Act has only a limited role to play and that is only with regard to consolidation of agricultural holdings to facilitate better quality of agriculture. Thus, the 1953 Act does not deal with the grant of substantive rights to the tenure-holders," the bench quoted the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Mool Chandra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation (2007). 

In the present case, two appeals were filed against the judgment and order of January 05, 2009, passed by a division bench of the High Court.

As per the facts of the matter, Zahoor Ahmed, son of Abdul Shakoor, father of the appellants, had moved the Consolidation Officer, Sultanpur under Section 9(2) of the 1953 Act, raising a dispute as to Khata Nos 99 and 100 of village Bhati Jarouli of Miranpur, District Sultanpur, recorded in the name of respondent Sami Ullah and others. Zahoor Ahmed claimed co-tenancy in both the Khatas to the extent of half share. Since the dispute could not be reconciled, he approached the Consolidation Officer. 

After notice and hearing, the Consolidation Officer passed an order on December 06, 1972, directing that the name of Zahoor Ahmed be entered as a co-tenant in Khata No 99 and accordingly partition be made. The shares of Sami Ullah and another (respondents herein) were determined to the extent of 1/4 each. 

However, the claim of Zahoor Ahmed of co-tenancy qua Khata No 100 was rejected. 

Accordingly, direction was issued to intimate the parties and to correct the areas of the land in respect of the parties so determined by the Consolidation Officer.

Aggrieved by the 1972 order, respondents Sami Ullah and others filed appeals before the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 11(1) of the 1953 Act. Similarly, Zahoor Ahmed also filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the 1953 Act against the said order, rejecting his claim qua Khata No. 100. By order of April 25, 1973, the appellate authority i.e. the Assistant Settlement Officer, Sultanpur dismissed all the appeals. Thus, the order of the Consolidation Officer of 1972 was upheld.

Thereafter, respondents Sami Ullah and others filed a revision application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur. Likewise, the legal heirs of Zahoor Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed and others also filed revisions before the Deputy Director against the rejection of their appeal. 

By the order of September 20, 1974, the Deputy Director opined that Zahoor Ahmed was not entitled to get share in the Khatas and accordingly, the order of the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer i.e. the appellate authority was modified. The Deputy Director while dismissing the revision of Zahoor Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed and others allowed the revision of the respondent Sami Ullah and others. 

Appellants, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court, which held that the Deputy Director was not justified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining the share of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans. Accordingly, the 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 which exclusively belonged to the respondents Sami Ullah and his brother Badlu, sons of Abdul Ghafoor. 

Case Title: Nisar Ahmad & Ors Vs Sami Ullah (Dead) Thr LRs & Anr