SMT. NEMA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, U.P., LUCKNOW CAMP AT PILIBHIT AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1971-9-32
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
September 09,1971
Smt. Nema
Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow Camp At Pilibhit And Others
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
Satish Chandra, J. -
(1.) This petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of consolidation proceedings. It appears that on 18th June, 1957, Smt. Jasoda, respondent No. 3 executed a deed of release in respect of the plots in dispute in favour of the petitioner, Smt. Nema for a cash consideration of Rs. 800/ -. It was recited in the document that Smt. Jasoda, the executant had deposited ten times the rent in order to obtain bhumidhari rights. Thereafter, the bhumidhari certificate appears to have been granted in favour of Smt. Jasoda on 18th September, 1964.
(2.) The consolidation proceedings in the village where the plots in dispute are situate started before the grant of the aforesaid certificate. The parties objections. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the claim of the petitioner to be recorded as a Bhumidhar. On appeal, the Settlement Officer accepted the claim. He directed that the name of Smt. Jasoda, be expunged from the record and, in her place, the name of the petitioner be recorded as a sirdar. Smt. Jasoda filed a revision. The Dy. Director has allowed it. He has held that Smt. Jasoda was only a sirdar on the date of the execution of the deed of release. The release operated as a transfer, which was prohibited under the ZA and LR Act, and that Smt. Jasoda had made no fraudulent representations in the deed of release and so the petitioner, namely, Smt. Nema was not entitled to the benefit of S. 43, Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) At the time of the admission of the writ petition, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Smt. Annapurna v/s. Munshi ( : 1967 AWR 198), for the proposition that the benefit of S. 43, Transfer of Property Act, was available to a transfer of Sirdari holding, even though it was made in contravention of S. 153, UP ZA Act. The Bench felt that this decision required a reconsideration, and, so recommended that the writ petition be heard at the final hearing by a Division Bench. That is how the petition has come before this Bench.;
(2.) The consolidation proceedings in the village where the plots in dispute are situate started before the grant of the aforesaid certificate. The parties objections. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the claim of the petitioner to be recorded as a Bhumidhar. On appeal, the Settlement Officer accepted the claim. He directed that the name of Smt. Jasoda, be expunged from the record and, in her place, the name of the petitioner be recorded as a sirdar. Smt. Jasoda filed a revision. The Dy. Director has allowed it. He has held that Smt. Jasoda was only a sirdar on the date of the execution of the deed of release. The release operated as a transfer, which was prohibited under the ZA and LR Act, and that Smt. Jasoda had made no fraudulent representations in the deed of release and so the petitioner, namely, Smt. Nema was not entitled to the benefit of S. 43, Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) At the time of the admission of the writ petition, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Smt. Annapurna v/s. Munshi ( : 1967 AWR 198), for the proposition that the benefit of S. 43, Transfer of Property Act, was available to a transfer of Sirdari holding, even though it was made in contravention of S. 153, UP ZA Act. The Bench felt that this decision required a reconsideration, and, so recommended that the writ petition be heard at the final hearing by a Division Bench. That is how the petition has come before this Bench.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.