S.R.Misra - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by judgment dated 8-11-982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(2.) THE detailed facts have been narrated in the judgment and order of date passed in Writ Petition no. 4347 of 1982. THE present petition arises out of the common judgment and two questions are subject matter, firstly, whether Ram Singh petitioner in writ petition no. 4317 of 1982 was exclusive owner of the land in dispute, and, secondly, whether the respondent nos. 3 to 5 are contenure holders. By the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding of fact that Ram Singh and respondent nos. 3 to 5 are co tenure holders having 1/4th share each. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners after depositing 20 times of rental for obtaining Bhumidhari sanad. When the petitioners applied for recording their names in revenue papers on the basis of aforesaid registered sale deed, Ram Singh filed an objection slating therein that the required amount, though deposited on 11-8-69 and the sale deed having been executed on 12-8-1969 without obtaining the Bhumidihari sanad, the sale deed was a void transaction. All the three Consolidation Authorities refused to mutate the name of the petitioner on the ground that sale deed was executed without obtaining Bhumidhari sanad and as such, the petitioners-transferres will have no right, or, interest over the land in dispute and it can be said to be void transaction. In Writ Petition no. 4347 of 1982, the judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, so far as challenge of Ram Singh that he was exclusive owner is concerned, has been affirmed and it has been held that Ram Singh along with three brothers were co tenure holders to the extent of 1/4 share each. Thus, so far as right of three brothers Of Ram Singh, who executed the registered sale deed in question, is concerned has already been upheld. The only question that survives for consideration in the present case is as to what will to; effect of the registered sale deed executed by respondent nos. 3 to 5 in favour of the petitioners on 12-8-1969 after depositing 20 times rental on 11-8-1969 without obtaining the Bhumidhari sanad. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after depositing 20 times rental when the respondents nos, 3 to 5 executed registered sale deed and received sale consideration, the mutation on the basis of such sale deed cannot be refused on account of mere non-issuance of Bhumidhari sanad by the date of sale deed
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation stating that mere deposit of 20 times of rental by respondent nos. 3 to 5 did not confer Bhumidhari right and there is complete bar in transferring the property by sirdar. Even when a person becomes Bhumidhar, there are class of Bhimidars, who have no transferable rights. According to him, the view taken by the Consolidation Authorities is perfectly in accordance with law, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record as well as provisions relating to deposit of 20 times rental for becoming Bhumidhar and the provisions contained in section 134 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, I have come to the conclusion that once the rental equivalent to 20 times, is made, in all respects, the pre-condition for execution of sale deed is complete, and complied with. Issuance of Bhumidhari sanad is a ministerial act. When the certificate is issued, it is issued from She date of deposit of 20 times rental. Thus, the person depositing 20 times rental, if executes a sale deed after such deposit, the sale deed executed by him cannot be said to a bad or void transaction and the transferrees are entitled to be recorded in place of transferor. Ram Singh, who was resisting the mutation, was claiming exclusive right, and, once it has been finally held that he was a co tenure holder to the extent of 1/4 share and the owners of 3/4 share having executed a registered sale deed after- receiving sale consideration, he can have no grievance. It is admitted that the respondent nos. 3 to 5 never objected or contested the mutation sought by the petitioners on the basis of registered sale deed. Ram Singh having lost the title, of his exclusive claim, he too is not entitled either to object the mutation or in writ jurisdiction any relief can be granted in his favour.;