Consolidation Authorities Not Justified In Importing Principles Of Hindu Law While Determining Share Of Mohammedan Parties: Supreme Court Upholds HC Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court in a property dispute case.
The Court while upholding the High Court’s judgment, noted that the authorities were not justified in importing principles of Hindu Law while determining the share of parties who were Mohammedans.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “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.”
Advocate M.Z. Chaudhary represented the appellants while Syed Mehdi Imam represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
Zahoor Ahmed, son of Abdul Shakoor, father of the appellants, had moved the Consolidation Officer, Sultanpur under Section 9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 raising a dispute as to Khata Nos. 99 and 100 of village Bhati Jarouli of Miranpur, District Sultanpur, U.P., 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 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) 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. The respondents then filed appeals before the Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO) and similarly, Zahoor also filed an appeal. The ASO dismissed all the appeals and the Consolidation Officer’s order was upheld. Thereafter, the respondents filed a revision application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and likewise, the legal heirs of the appellants also filed revision. Resultantly, the impugned order was affirmed and the revision applications were dismissed. Hence, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, they were before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, observed, “Any party to a proceeding under Section 9 and who is aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer, as the case may be, may prefer an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, within the period prescribed under Section 11.”
Moreover, the Court added that the appellate authority after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties shall pass appropriate order in appeal which shall be final and that, Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 makes a declaration that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, hearing an appeal under sub-Section (1) shall be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction.
“While the appellate order is final, the Director of Consolidation has been conferred the power of revision and reference under Section 48. He can exercise the powers under Section 48 either on a reference or suo moto. The said power is to be exercised by the Director of Consolidation to satisfy himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order (other than an interlocutory order) passed by the subordinate authorities”, it noted.
The Court, therefore, said that there is no error or infirmity in the view taken by the High Court and that its decision is on a bundle of facts and counter agitated by both the parties.
“It is a factual determination by the High Court based on the evidence on record. We do not find any perversity in the approach of the High Court or any error apparent on the face of record to warrant further scrutiny by this Court”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title- Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through LRs & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 820)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates M. Z. Chaudhary, Shariq A. Zaidi, Maansi Chahal, and Kapil Sagar.
Respondents: AORs Syed Mehdi Imam, Sharad Chauhan, Advocates Atif Suhrawardy, Tabrez Ahmad, Sharmishtha Shukla, and Yagyawalkya Singh.
