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

                [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.). By the aforesaid judgment and
     order dated 05.01.2009, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6635 of 1974
     was dismissed and Writ Petition No.18 of 1975 has been allowed.
3.   By order dated 27.04.2009, this Court had issued notice on the special
     leave petition as well as on the prayer for interim relief. Subsequently,
     by order dated 15.01.2010, both the parties were directed to maintain
     status quo prevailing as on 15.01.2010. Thereafter, by order dated
     03.11.2011, leave was granted directing the status quo order to be
     continued in the meantime.
4.   At the outset, it may be useful to make a brief reference to the
     relevant facts. 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 (briefly ‘the 1953 Act’ hereinafter) 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 dated 06.12.1972 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
1858                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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.
5.   Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 06.12.1972, 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 dated 06.12.1972 rejecting his claim qua Khata No. 100.
     By order dated 25.04.1973, the appellate authority i.e. the Assistant
     Settlement Officer, Sultanpur dismissed all the appeals. In other words,
     order of the Consolidation Officer dated 06.12.1972 was upheld.
6.   Thereafter, respondents Sami Ullah and others filed a revision
     application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur
     (‘Deputy Director’, hereinafter). Likewise, the legal heirs of Zahoor
     Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed and others (‘appellants’ herein) also filed
     revision before the Deputy Director against rejection of their appeal.
     By the order dated 20.09.1974, the Deputy Director opined that
     Zahoor Ahmed was not entitled to get share in the above Khatas and
     accordingly the order of the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by the
     Assistant Settlement Officer i.e. the appellate authority was modified.
     Deputy Director while dismissing the revision of Zahoor Ahmed,
     Nisar Ahmed and others allowed the revision of the respondent
     Sami Ullah and others.
7.   Appellants thereafter preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of
     1974 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (briefly ‘the
     High Court’ hereinafter). By the judgment and order dated 05.01.2009,
     the High Court held that 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 have 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised
     in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112
     which exclusively belongs to the respondents Sami Ullah and his
     brother Badlu, sons of Abdul Ghafoor. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Writ
     Petition No. 6635 of 1974 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 18
     of 1975 was allowed.
8.   It is this judgment and order dated 05.01.2009 which came to be
     assailed in the related special leave petitions and upon leave being
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         1859

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


     granted, the present civil appeals came to be registered.
9.   While learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the High
     Court was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy
     Director in revision thereby adversely affecting the rights of the parties,
     learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the
     impugned order. He submits that the order of the High Court is a well-
     reasoned and balanced order and therefore should not be disturbed.
10. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received
    the due consideration of the Court.
11. Zahoor Ahmed, the predecessor in interest of the appellants, had
    approached the Consolidation Officer under Section 9(2) of the 1953
    Act raising a dispute regarding Khata Nos. 99 and 100. It may be
    mentioned that the Khata No. 99 was recorded in the name of Sami
    Ullah and Badlu (the respondents) whereas Khata No. 100 was
    recorded in the name of Sami Ullah alone. Zahoor Ahmed claimed
    co-tenancy in both the Khatas to the extent of 1/2 share. He also
    claimed half share in Khata No. 100. Since the dispute could not be
    reconciled, the same was raised before the Consolidation Officer.
     11.1. According to Zahoor Ahmed, the land in question were acquired
           by Mohammad and Abdul Ghafoor, father of Allah Bux, jointly
           for the benefit of the entire family. Thus, they were in joint
           occupation of the land. At the time of death of Allah Bux,
           Ghafoor was the ‘karta’ of the family and all the sons of Allah
           Bux remained in joint occupation. Zahoor Ahmed claimed that
           he was in joint occupation of the land in question, paying land
           revenue to the extent of his share. Thus, he claimed half share
           in the land in question by way of pedigree.
     11.2. According to the respondents, their father had acquired the lands
           covered by Khata No. 98 through lease; their father had five
           shares in the said land and one share belonged to Mohammad
           who died in 1942. Though he was survived by his daughter, as
           per family custom, she did not have any share in the lands in
           question. Respondents claimed one share in this land as well.
           Thus, according to the respondents, they had 11/12 share in
           Khata No. 98 and 1/12 share belonged to Zahoor.
     11.3. In so far Khata No. 99 is concerned, according to the
           respondents, these lands were acquired by their father
1860                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


          and devolved upon them on the death of their father. They
          challenged the claim of Zahoor to such land on the ground
          that Zahoor had made a dastbardari in their favour in the
          year 1948. Plot Nos. 45, 57, 111 and 112 were claimed by
          the respondents as having been acquired by their father
          Ghafoor. They, however, admitted half share claim of Zahoor
          Ahmed in respect of Khata No. 99 while denying the claim to
          the remaining extent of half. Plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100
          was wholly claimed by the respondents denying the claim of
          Zahoor to the extent of half share in the said land.
    11.4. Consolidation Officer upon consideration of the pleadings of
          the parties in dispute had framed the following issues:
          (i)     Whether respondents were entitled to 11/12 share of
                  Khata No. 98?
          (ii)    Whether Zahoor Ahmed was entitled to half share of
                  Khata No. 98?
          (iii)   What was the share of the parties in respect of Khata No. 98?
          (iv) Whether Zahoor Ahmed was co-tenant of Khata No. 99
               as claimed?
          (v)     Whether the respondents were recorded as the sole
                  owner of the land covered by Khata No. 99?
          (vi) Whether Sami Ullah and Badlu i.e. the respondents were
               entitled to 11/12 share in respect of plot Nos. 31, 94, 95,
               96, 97 and 99 etc. as claimed?
          (vii) Whether plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 were the sole
                sirdari of the respondents as claimed?
          (viii) What were the share of the parties qua Khata No. 99?
          (ix) Whether Zahoor was co-tenant of plot No. 115 of Khata
               No. 100 as claimed?
          (x)     Whether the respondents were the sole owner of the land
                  of Khata No. 100?
          (xi) What were the shares of the parties qua Khata No. 100?
    11.5. After noting that it was an admitted position that neither the
          daughter in the family nor their sons got any share in the lands
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     1861

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


           belonging to the family, Consolidation Officer observed that the
           appellants and the respondents were recorded as co-tenant of
           the land in Khata No. 98. Respondents also admitted the share
           of the appellants in plot Nos. 94, 95, 96, 99, 100 etc. to the
           extent of 1/12. Thus, according to the Consolidation Officer, in
           view of the admission made by the respondents, Zahoor Ahmed
           was the co-tenant and that the dispute was only regarding his
           share. Further, the Consolidation Officer remarked that the
           onus was on the respondent to prove that they were entitled
           to 11/12 share of the land. Consolidation Officer also noticed
           that there was a lease deed of 1922 but what was to be seen
           was whether the lands were acquired jointly.
     11.6. After discussing the evidence and the materials on record, the
           Consolidation Officer vide the order dated 06.12.1972 held that
           Zahoor Ahmed was in occupation of the plots of land bearing
           Nos. 95, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 107 and as many as five plots
           being 99, 100, 107 etc. were being cultivated by Zahoor. The
           Khasra for the relevant years indicated that Zahoor was all along
           in occupation of the above lands; his name was recorded over
           an area of 3 bighas 10 biswas of lands and he also paid land
           revenue in respect of which large number of revenue receipts
           were on record. Thus, the Consolidation Officer concluded that
           the lands were acquired jointly when Zahoor Ahmed was a
           minor and his share would be half of the land. Therefore, he
           was entitled to half share in Khata Nos. 98 and 99. In so far
           plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 is concerned, it was held that
           the same remained the exclusive property of the respondents.
           The Consolidation Officer declared that Zahoor Ahmed being
           the co-tenant of Khata No. 99 was entitled to half share thereof.
           Accordingly, it was ordered that the name of Zahoor Ahmed be
           entered as a co-tenant in Khata No. 99 and partition be made
           in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 in the following manner:

                 (i)     Zahoor       -   1/2
                 (ii)    Sami Ullah   -   1/4
                 (iii)   Badlu        -   1/4
12. Against the aforesaid order dated 06.12.1972, altogether three
    appeals were filed before the appellate authority i.e. Assistant
    Settlement Officer- one by Zahoor Ahmed and the other two by
1862                                                     [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


    the respondents. The appeals were filed under Section 11(1) of the
    1953 Act.
    12.1. By the common judgment and order dated 25.4.1973, the
          appellate authority i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer, Sultanpur
          dismissed all the three appeals. While dismissing the appeals,
          the appellate authority noted that in the basic year, Khata No.98
          was recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu and also
          in the name of Zahoor Ahmed. Khata Nos.99 and 100 were
          recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. Zahoor Ahmed
          filed objection under Section 9 of the 1953 Act contending that
          in Khata No.99 his name should be recorded. He claimed 1/2
          share in Khata Nos.98 and 99 contending that Satai was the
          common ancestor of both the parties and that he had acquired
          the disputed land from the joint family. According to him, Allah
          Bux and Mohammad were the sons of Satai. Abdul Ghafoor
          was the elder son of Allah Bux and became the ‘karta’ of the
          joint family. After the death of Allah Bux, Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul
          Shakoor and Mohd. Ismail, being sons of Allah Bux, came
          into possession of the disputed land jointly. Mohd. Ismail
          died issueless. The disputed land was recorded in the name
          of Sami Ullah and Badlu being the sons of Abdul Ghafoor as
          ‘karta’ of joint family.
    12.2. Zahoor stated that at the time of death of his father, he was a
          minor and lived with Abdul Ghafoor. Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul
          Shakoor had 1/2 share in the disputed land. Accordingly, both
          the parties were in possession of the disputed land.
    12.3. Sami Ullah and Badlu objected to the claim of Zahoor and
          contended that the land in Khata No.99 was acquired by
          Abdul Ghafoor. Sami Ullah and Badlu admitted 1/12 share in
          the disputed land and denied share of Zahoor in plot No.115
          of Khata No.100.
    12.4. The primary authority i.e. the Consolidation Officer on the basis
          of the materials of record and the evidence adduced decided
          the share of Zahoor in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 at 1/2 and
          dismissed the objection of Zahoor qua plot No. 115 of Khata
          No. 100. Therefore, Zahoor filed Appeal No. 43 in respect of plot
          No. 115 of Khata No.100. Sami Ullah and Badlu filed Appeal
          Nos. 50 and 51 against the decision of the Consolidation Officer
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                      1863

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


           declaring 1/2 share in the disputed land of Khata Nos. 98 and
           99 as belonging to Zahoor.
     12.5. The appellate authority was of the view that plot No.35 was
           recorded only in the name of Allah Bux. Zahoor had relinquished
           in favour of Sami Ullah on 30.06.1948. Zahoor also relinquished
           the share of Ismail. Sami Ullah had filed the patta for the first
           time before the Consolidation Officer on 07.05.1992. In the
           settlement exercise, some disputed land was acquired by
           Allah Bux and Mohammed jointly. Plot Nos.111 and 112 were
           recorded in the name of Abdul Ghafoor. The appellate authority
           noted the submission made on behalf of Zahoor that he was
           in possession of the disputed land in Khata Nos.98 and 99
           and paying land revenue and took the view that the disputed
           land was in possession of the joint family. When Shakoor,
           father of Zahoor, had died Zahoor was a minor. Thereafter,
           father of Sami Ullah brought up Ghafoor and Ghafoor lived
           as a member of the joint family. Though the name of Ghafoor
           was not recorded, Sami Ullah admitted 11/12 share of Zahoor.
           According to the appellate authority, Zahoor was in continuous
           possession over the disputed land. The revenue receipts
           indicated that he was in possession of 1/2 share thereof and
           paying the revenue in respect of the said land. As regards plot
           No. 115 of Khata No. 100, the appellate authority concurred
           with the view of the primary authority. Therefore, the appellate
           authority i.e. the Assistant Settlement Officer upheld the order
           of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed all the appeals.
13. Two revision petitions were filed under Section 48 of the 1953 Act,
    Revision No. 3302 was filed by the respondents and Revision No.
    3312 was filed by the appellants, against the judgment and order dated
    25.04.1973 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in appeal.
     13.1. The revisional authority i.e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation
           noted that according to Zahoor, the disputed land was joint
           family property and as such, his share in it was 1/2. Khata
           No. 98 was recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu on
           the one hand and Zahoor on the other hand whereas Khata
           No. 99 was recorded only in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu.
           Consolidation Officer had allowed the name of Zahoor Ahmed
           to be in half of Khata No. 98 and Khata No. 99; however,
1864                                                   [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


          dismissed the claim of Zahoor Ahmed in respect of plot No.
          115 of Khata No. 100. Against the aforesaid decision, appeal
          was filed but the same was dismissed. It was thereafter that
          the revision came to be filed by Zahoor Ahmed.
    13.2. On the other hand, Sami Ullah claimed that Zahoor had 1/12
          share in Khata No. 98 as well as in Khata No. 99 and none
          in respect of plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100. His objection
          was allowed in respect of plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 but
          was dismissed in respect of the other two Khatas. Therefore,
          he also filed appeals before the Assistant Settlement Officer
          which were however dismissed. Thereafter, the related revision
          petition came to be filed claiming 5/6th share in Khata No. 98
          and exclusively claimed Khata No. 99 for himself and Badlu.
    13.3. During the revision proceedings, Zahoor Ahmed died and
          he was substituted by his legal heirs (sons) Nisar Ahmed,
          Irshan Ahmed and Ishtiyag Ahmed. The revisional authority
          considered the claim of Sami Ullah. Zahoor Ahmed had disputed
          1/12th share in Khata No. 98 because in the year 1922, the
          disputed land was taken on lease by Abdul Ghafoor: 5/6th share
          from Mohammad Ismail and 1/6th share from the zamindar.
          Mohammad Ismail died in the year 1942. After his death, his
          1/6th share got devolved in 1/12th share, viz, in plot Nos. 35,
          57, 111 and 112. It was noted that Khata No. 99 was recorded
          in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. The revisional authority
          noted on the basis of the evidence adduced that Shakoor had
          expired in the year 1930. Thereafter, the name of Zahoor was
          recorded as a member of the joint family in Khata No. 98.
          From the materials on record, the revisional authority noticed
          that Zahoor was in possession and paying rent in respect of
          the disputed land. However, the revisional authority accepted
          the contention of Sami Ullah that Zahoor had relinquished
          his share in respect of plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 by way
          of relinquishment deed of the year 1948. Deputy Director i.e.
          the revisional authority noted that relinquishment was by way
          of a relinquishment deed and that Zahoor had admitted his
          signature on it. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve
          the contention of Sami Ullah because in the year 1948, Zahoor
          had relinquished his share in plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112.
          Further, possession of Zahoor Ahmed was also not recorded.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     1865

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


           Thus Zahoor Ahmed was held to be not entitled to any share in
           so far the said plots were concerned. The lower authorities had
           ignored the relinquishment deed which vitiated their respective
           orders. On the basis of the relinquishment deed, the Deputy
           Director allowed the revision of Sami Ullah in respect of plot
           Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112. As regards claim of Zahoor in respect
           of plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100, the Deputy Director was
           not convinced about the said claim. That being the position,
           the revisional authority upheld the view taken by the lower
           authorities and dismissed the revision of Zahoor Ahmed.
14. Assailing the above order of the revisional authority, appellants
    preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 1974 whereas
    respondents preferred Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 before the High
    Court. High Court heard both the writ petitions together as the two writ
    petitions arose out of the same consolidation proceedings in respect
    of Khata Nos. 98, 99 and 100 in village Bhati Jarouli, Sultanpur.
     14.1. High Court traced the pedigree of the parties. Satai was the
           common ancestor and he had two sons, namely, Allah Bux and
           Mohammad. Mohammad died issueless in the year 1942. Allah
           Bux had three sons i.e. Abdul Ghafoor who died in 1946, Abdul
           Shakoor who died in 1930 and Mohammad Ismail who died
           issueless in 1935. High Court pointed out that the dispute was
           between the two branches of Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Shakoor.
           Petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 1974 i.e.
           the appellants represented the branch of Abdul Shakoor. The
           contesting respondents of the said writ petition i.e. respondents
           herein represented the branch of Abdul Ghafoor. In the basic
           year, the entries were recorded in the following manner:
           (i)    Khata No. 98 was recorded in the names of the
                  respondents Sami Ullah and Badlu as well as in the name
                  of Zahoor Ahmed (father of the appellants).
           (ii)   Khata No. 99 was recorded in the names of Sami Ullah
                  and Badlu (the respondents).
           (iii) Khata No. 100 was exclusively recorded in the name of
                 Sami Ullah (respondent No. 1).
     14.2. Zahoor Ahmed, father of the appellants, had filed objection
           before the Consolidation Officer claiming co-tenancy rights
1866                                                   [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


          in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 to the extent of half share. He also
          claimed one half share in plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100.
    14.3. According to Zahoor Ahmed (father of the appellants), the
          disputed Khatas were acquired jointly by the common ancestor.
          After the death of Satai and Allah Bux, the name of Abdul
          Ghafoor was recorded since he had attained majority by that
          time and Abdul Shakoor was still a minor. Abdul Ghafoor was
          ‘karta’ of the family and he looked after Abdul Shakoor and
          Mohammad Ismail. After the death of Abdul Ghafoor, in view
          of the settlement arrived at between the legal heirs of Abdul
          Ghafoor and Zahoor Ahmed, the parties were in cultivatory
          possession of their respective shares in the disputed Khatas.
    14.4. On the other hand, Sami Ullah and Badlu (respondents) had
          contended that Khata No. 98 was taken on patta by Abdul
          Ghafoor and Mohammad. In the said patta, share of Abdul
          Ghafoor was mentioned as 5/6 and that of Mohammad 1/6.
          After the death of Mohammad, his share devolved in equal
          proportion upon Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Shakoor. Therefore,
          the appellants who represents the branch of Abdul Shakoor
          got only 1/12 share.
    14.5. The case of the contesting objectors (the respondents) with
          regard to plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 comprising Khata No.
          99 was that these plots were their exclusive property in view
          of the registered relinquishment deed dated 30.06.1948 (which
          was registered on 07.07.1948 and executed by the father of
          the appellant Zahoor Ahmed) in favour of the respondents.
          They contended that the said Khata was neither recorded in
          the name of Zahoor Ahmed nor was he in possession thereof.
          Respondents were the exclusive owners of plot Nos. 35, 57,
          111 and 112 of Khata No. 99.
    14.6. After tracing the trajectory of the orders passed by the
          Consolidation Officer, appellate authority i.e. the Assistant
          Settlement Officer and the revisional authority i.e. the Deputy
          Director of Consolidation, the High Court noted that the Deputy
          Director vide the order dated 20.09.1974 had confirmed the
          orders of the lower authorities with respect to plot No. 115
          of Khata No. 100 but had partly allowed the revision of the
          respondents with respect to plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 of
          Khata No. 99 as well as of Khata No. 98.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        1867

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


     14.7. High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated
           05.01.2009 held that execution of the relinquishment deed
           in respect of the four plots of land i.e. plot Nos. 35, 57, 111
           and 112 of Khata No. 99 was not denied by Zahoor Ahmed. It
           was a registered document and thus carried the presumption
           of genuineness. High Court further noted that the appellants
           had not questioned the genuineness and correctness of the
           relinquishment deed at any stage of the litigation. Zahoor
           Ahmed was very much alive when the consolidation operation
           had commenced in the village. Though he filed objections and
           had the full opportunity to dispute the relinquishment deed, he
           did not do so. There was no evidence on record to show that
           execution of the relinquishment deed was ever disputed by
           Zahoor Ahmed. On the contrary, the stand of Zahoor Ahmed all
           along was that after the death of his father, he was brought up
           by his uncle Abdul Ghafoor; after attaining the age of majority,
           he might have executed the said relinquishment deed. In the writ
           proceedings, appellants had contended that they did not admit
           the genuineness and the binding nature of the relinquishment
           deed. But such contentions were rejected by the High Court
           on the ground that Zahoor Ahmed during his entire lifetime at
           no point of time had disputed the said relinquishment deed.
           Even otherwise also, the High Court found that said plots
           were exclusively recorded in the names of the respondents
           which would go to show that Abdul Shakoor had surrendered
           his right and title in favour of Abdul Ghafoor. In view of the
           above, High Court opined that the finding recorded by the
           Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision was justified and
           called for no interference.
     14.8. As regards plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100, High Court noted
           that all the three authorities below had rejected the claim of the
           appellants holding that the said land belongs to the respondents
           exclusively. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not
           press the writ petition with regard to the said plot. That being the
           position, High Court found no merit in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
           No. 6635 of 1974 and the same was accordingly dismissed.
     14.9. In so far Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 filed by the respondents
           is concerned, the challenge was to the finding of co-tenancy
           recorded by all the authorities below with respect to Khata Nos.
1868                                                   [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


        98 and 99 holding that Abdul Ghafoor had half share therein.
        Respondents (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975)
        placed reliance on a lease deed dated 07.05.1922 executed
        by Fateh Bahadur and Jagat Narayan Singh in favour of Abdul
        Ghafoor and Mohammad mentioning their respective shares :
        Abdul Ghafoor had 5/6 share and Mohammad had 1/6 share.
        On the death of Mohammad, his share devolved on Zahoor
        Ahmed to the extent of 1/12 share and the remaining 11/12
        share devolved on the respondents. The said patta (lease) was
        rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that at the
        relevant time, Zahoor Ahmed was a minor and that the lease
        had not seen the light of the day nor was it proved. In appeal,
        the appellate authority held that though the patta (lease) was
        executed by two persons, it was signed by only one person i.e.
        Fateh Bahadur. High Court considered the lease deed dated
        07.05.1922 and noted that land was taken by two persons,
        viz, Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah Bux and Mohammad, son of
        Satai. Abdul Shakoor, father of Zahoor Ahmed was very much
        alive in the year 1922. He had died some time in the year
        1930. It was clear that the lease was taken jointly by Abdul
        Ghafoor and Mohammad and not as a joint family property by
        the two persons. That apart, the concept of joint family property
        prevalent amongst the Hindus was unknown to the Muslims.
        Abdul Ghafoor and Mohammad were the only lessees of the said
        land. High Court held that the lower authorities had misdirected
        themselves by considering acquisition of the said property by
        Abdul Ghafoor and Mohammad as joint acquisition on behalf of
        the entire family. The source of acquisition of the said property
        was the lease deed dated 07.05.1922 and in the revenue
        records, names of the respondents and of Zahoor Ahmed were
        recorded. The only dispute was with regard to the extent of their
        respective shares. The authorities below had proceeded to allot
        1/2 share to Zahoor Ahmed on the premise that it was a joint
        family property. According to the High Court, the said approach
        was not legally tenable. The revisional authority was also not
        justified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining
        the shares of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans.
        Accordingly, it was held that appellants would get 1/12 share
        in the land comprised in the lease deed and not half (1/2) as
        was decided by the authorities below.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         1869

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


     14.10. In that view of the matter, High Court held that the appellants
            would have 1/12 share in the plots comprised in Khata
            Nos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which
            exclusively belonged to the respondents.
     14.11. That being the position, Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 was
            allowed.
15. Thus, against the dismissal of Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 6635 of
    1974 and partly allowing of Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975, the related
    special leave petitions were filed.
16. This being the factual scenario, let us now have a brief survey of
    the 1953 Act. The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
    1953 (already referred to as ‘the 1953 Act’) is an Act to provide for
    the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the
    development of agriculture. The statement of objects and reasons
    of the 1953 Act is as under:
          After the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
          Land Reforms Act, 1950, there was naturally a pressing
          demand for the consolidation of holdings in the State.
          Since the complicated and numerous types of tenures,
          both proprietary and cultivatory, the greatest stumbling
          blocks in the way of successful consolidation of holdings,
          have been abolished it is an opportune time to start this
          work. The advantages of having in compact blocks all the
          land farmed by one family need only be briefly mentioned.
          Boundary lines should be reduced in “number and extent,
          saving land and diminishing boundary disputes, larger fields
          would be possible and time saved in making trips to the
          fields. Further, if land were all one piece barriers, such as
          fences, hedges or ditches could be erected to obtain privacy
          and prevent trespassing, thieving and gleening. The control
          of irrigation and drainage water would be easier; control
          of pests, insects and disease would also be less difficult.
     16.1. Thus, as per the statement of objects and reasons, after the
           enforcement of the U.P. 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 was too well known.
1870                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


              Boundary lines would be reduced in number thereby not only
              saving the lands but also reducing boundary disputes. This
              would also lead to larger fields with attendant advantages. It
              could be barricaded properly to prevent trespassing and ensure
              proper irrigation and pest control.
17. Raison d’etre of the Act was examined by this Court in Attar Singh
    Vs. State of U.P..1 This Court observed that the object of the 1953 Act
    is to allot a compact area in lieu of scattered plots to tenure-holders
    so that large scale cultivation would be possible with all its attendant
    advantages thus leading to reduction of boundary lines. In the process
    lot of land would be saved resulting in lesser number of boundary
    disputes. While reducing the movement of the farmers from one plot
    to another, consolidation would enure to the benefit of the farmers in
    erecting fences etc. around a compact area to prevent trespassing
    and thieving. It would also become easier to control irrigation and
    drainage besides reducing the number of disputes over water. That
    apart, pest control etc. would become easier as the farmers would
    have compact areas for cultivation. This Court observed that such
    advantages resulting from consolidation of holdings are intended to
    encourage the development of agriculture leading to more production
    of foodgrains, so essential for the community.
18. Making a comparison of the 1953 Act with the U.P. Zamindari
    Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951),
    a Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mool Chandra Vs.
    Deputy Director of Consolidation,2 observed that U.P. Act No. 1 of
    1951 was enacted to provide for abolition of the zamindari system
    involving intermediaries between the tillers of the soil and the State
    and for acquisition of the right, title and interest over the land by the
    tillers and also to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent
    upon such abolition and acquisition. On the other hand, the primary
    object of the 1953 Act is consolidation of agricultural holdings for the
    development of agriculture. It was in this backdrop that Allahabad
    High Court observed that 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


1   [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928 : AIR 1959 SC 564
2   2007 SCC OnLine All 2196
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         1871

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


     deal with the grant of substantive rights to the tenure-holders. While
     substantive rights are governed by the provisions contained in U.P.
     Act No. 1 of 1951, the 1953 Act is only procedural with regard to
     consolidation of holdings.
19. Section 3 of the 1953 Act contains the definitions of various words
    and expressions used in the said Act. As per Section 3(1A), chak
    means the parcel of land allotted to a tenure-holder on consolidation.
    Consolidation has been defined in Section 3(2) to mean re-
    arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure-holders
    in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact.
    Section 3(2A) defines consolidation area to mean the area in respect
    of which notification under Section 4 has been issued. Section 3(4C)
    defines holding to mean a parcel or parcels of land held under one
    tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders.
    Land has been defined in Section 3(5) to mean land held or occupied
    for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal
    husbandry, including pisciculture and poultry farming. Rectangulation
    as defined in Section 3(8A) means the process of dividing the area
    of a unit into rectangles and parts of rectangles of convenient size
    with a view to regulating the allotment of chaks during consolidation.
    Tenure-holder has been defined in Section 3(11) to mean a bhumidhar
    either with transferrable rights or with non-transferrable rights. Unit
    has been defined in Section 3(11A) to mean a village or part thereof
    or two or more villages or parts thereof for which a single scheme
    of consolidation is to be framed.
     19.1. Section 4 deals with declaration and notification regarding
           consolidation. As per sub-Section 1(a), the State Government,
           where it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought
           under consolidation operations, may make a declaration to that
           effect to be published in the official gazette whereupon it shall
           be lawful for any empowered officer or authority to enter upon
           the declared land and carry out survey etc. Thus, consolidation
           proceedings start in a district or part thereof with the issuance
           of notification under Section 4 which besides being published
           in the official gazette is also to be published as a public notice
           at convenient places of the district or part thereof.
     19.2. The consequences which would ensue following publication of
           notification under Section 4 are enumerated in Section 5(2).
1872                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          Amongst the various consequences, it is important to note that
          once a declaration is notified, every proceeding for correction of
          records and every suit or proceedings in respect of declaration
          of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration
          or adjudication of any other right at any stage of the proceedings
          would stand abated. Ofcourse, such abatement would have to
          be preceded by notice and hearing. That apart, such abatement
          would be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected
          to agitate the rights or interest in dispute in the said suits or
          proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities
          under and in accordance with the 1953 Act.
    19.3. While Section 7 deals with revision of village map, Section 8
          speaks about revision of the field book etc upon such revision
          of village map. Section 8A provides for preparation of statement
          of principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation
          operations. Section 9 on the other hand provides for issue
          of extracts from records and statements and publications
          of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8A and the issue of
          notices for inviting objections under sub-section (1) thereof.
          Sub-section (2) empowers the noticee to file objections within
          the prescribed period disputing the correctness or nature of the
          entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom or
          in the statement of principles or the need for partition. Section
          9A deals with disposal of cases relating to claims to land and
          partition of joint holdings. Section 9B provides for disposal of
          objections on the basis of the statement of principles.
    19.4. 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. The appellate authority after
          providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties shall pass
          appropriate order in appeal which shall be final. 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.
    19.5. While the appellate order is final, the Director of Consolidation
          has been conferred the power of revision and reference under
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     1873

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


           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.
20. This is broadly the scheme of the Act.
21. Before we analyse the impugned judgment and order of the High
    Court, it will be useful to have the pedigree of the parties in the form
    of a chart which is as under:

                              Satai


            Allah Bux                                         Mohammad



         Abdul Ghafoor                Shakoor       Mohd. Ismail


                                       Zahoor
         Sami Ullah      Badlu
22. As can be seen from the chart above, the dispute is between the
    legal heirs of Shakoor i.e. the appellants and the legal heirs of
    Ghafoor i.e. the respondents. High Court has duly considered the
    claim of the appellants as well as of the respondents and has 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 are
    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 Civil Misc.
    Writ Petition No. 6635 of 1974 filed by the appellants.
23. In so far Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 is concerned, the same was
    filed by the respondents, being aggrieved by the declaration made
    by the consolidation authorities that appellant would get half (1/2)
    share in the plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 excluding
1874                                                     [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


    plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged to the
    respondents. 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. Thus, the High Court held as follows:
         I have given careful consideration to the three orders of the
         authorities. I also perused copy of the lease deed dated
         07.05.1922. A bare perusal of the said lease deed dated
         07.05.1922 clearly shows that the said lease deed was
         taken by two persons, namely, Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah
         Bux, and Mohammad, son of Satai. Abdul Shakoor, father of
         Zahoor Ahmed (Objector) was very much alive in the year
         1922. He, according to the finding of the Deputy Director of
         Consolidation, died some time in the year 1930. It shows
         that the lease was taken jointly by Abdul Ghafoor, son of
         Allah Bux, and Mohammad, son of Satai. The said lease
         was not taken as joint family property by these persons.
         The concept of joint family property which is prevalent
         amongst the Hindus is not known amongst the Muslims.
         Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah Bux, and Mohammad, son
         of Satai, were the only lessees and no other person. The
         authorities below misdirected themselves by considering
         the said acquisition of the property by Abdul Ghafoor and
         Mohammad as joint acquisition for the family.
         So far as the validity of the lease in question is concerned,
         the same cannot be disputed by the contesting respondents
         Nos. 4 to 7 (petitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974).
         It is not their case that the property was acquired by Abdul
         Ghafoor and Mohammad in any other manner. It is also not
         their case nor established by them that the said property
         was acquired by Satai, the common ancestor, or by Abdul
         Ghafoor, father of Zahoor Ahmad, in any other manner.
         Source of acquisition of the said property is the lease deed
         in question dated 07.05.1922. In the revenue records in the
         basic year, names of Sami Ullah and Badlu (respondents
         Nos. 4 and 5) of the connected writ petition and of Zahoor
         Ahmad are recorded. Only dispute is with regard to the
         extent of their respective shares therein. The authorities
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                              1875

     Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.


             below have proceeded to allot 1/2 share to Zahoor Ahemed
             on the basis that it was a joint property of the family. The
             said approach, in my considered opinion, is not legally
             tenable. The lease in question was acted upon and was
             accepted as is evident from the extract of khatauni (record
             of rights) of the third settlement, Annexure-2 to writ petition
             No. 18 of 1975. The Deputy Director of Consolidation
             was not justified in importing principles of Hindu law while
             determining the shares of the parties. In a nut shell, the
             petitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974 will get 1/12
             share in the land comprised in the said lease deed and
             not 1/2 as was wrongly held by consolidation authorities.
             In view of the above discussions, it is held that the
             petitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974 have 1/12
             share jointly in the plots comprised in khata Nos. 98
             and 99 excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which
             exclusively belongs to Sami Ullah and his brother Badlu,
             sons of Abdul Ghafoor.
24. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the High
    Court. The decision rendered by the High Court is on a bundle of
    facts agitated 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.
25. That being the position, we are of the view that there is no merit
    in the two civil appeals which are accordingly dismissed. However,
    there shall be no order as to costs.
26. In view of the judgment passed in C.A. Nos. 9739-9740/2011, the
    Contempt Petition stands closed.

     Result of the case: Civil Appeals dismissed.
                          Contempt Petition closed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey