Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39503 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6579 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Surat Dei Respondent :- Dist. Deputy Director Of Consolidation/Collector Faizabadandor Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Tiwari,Indra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Dhar Dubey,Azad Khan,Komal Prasad Tiwari,Rohit Tripathi Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Indra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri B.R. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 04.10.2018, passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad/Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising his powers under Section 48(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act as we well as order dated 29.04.2017, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Faizabad. 3. Controversy as raised by the petitioner in the present petition revolves around the question as to who are the persons entitled to the property of one Rajbakhs. On one hand petitioner claims to be sister of Rajbakhs and according to the successors it is stated that Rajbakhs died intestate and he was never married and consequently his only heir is the petitioner who is entitled to inherit all the property of Rajbakhs. While on the other hand claim of respondent no. 3 - Smt. Usha has claimed herself to be wife of Rajbakhs and consequently claims that she is entitled to the property of Rajbakhs and her name should be mutated in place of her deceased husband. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the notification of Village - Dhanethuwa, Pragana - Khandasa, Tehsil - Milkipur, District - Faizabad, name of Smt. Usha and her son Ankit (respondent nos. 3 and 4) was entered in the revenue record in place of Rajbakhs. The petitioner on coming to know about the aforesaid entries in favour of the private respondents filed a revision under Section 40 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the said revision was allowed on 31.03.2005, thereby setting aside order dated 28.03.2003, passed by the Consolidation Officer and directing the parties to file objections in pursuance of the notification made under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and on their filing such objections, same should be considered and decided in accordance with law. 5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after publication under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the objection were filed by the respective parties under Section 9-A(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in compliance of directions given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and all these objections came to be considered and decided by the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 02.01.2013. The Consolidation Officer after considering rival claims and examining the documents adduced by the parties, relying upon the averments made by the petitioner and also considering the Pariwar Register produced by the private respondents indicating that she was the wife of Rajbakhs. He also considered the affidavit filed by the Gram Pradhan of the Village, who categorically stated that none of the villagers were aware that Rajbakhs was ever married to any person named "Usha" and accordingly held that claim of Smt. Usha was not sustainable and accordingly, rejected the claim of Smt. Usha and accordingly relied upon the fact that name of Smt. Usha was illegal and arbitrary included in the Pariwar Register and at the time of hearing of the said matter, appropriate orders were passed by the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) deleting the name of Smt. Usha and hence directed that name of Smt. Surat Dei - petitioner be mutated in place of Smt. Usha. 6. Being aggrieved by order dated 02.01.2013, passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was preferred by the private respondents before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). It has been submitted that before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), it was stated that order of Additional Development Officer (Panchayat), who had deleted name of Smt. Usha from the Pariwar Register was assailed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and submitted that said proceedings are pending on the behest of the appellants and no conclusive finding can be recorded in this regard. The appellants have further relied upon other material and evidence produced before the Consolidation Officer which included receipt of Life Insurance Corporation wherein Smt. Usha was paid compensation on the death of Rajbakhs and also admission card issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer issued in favour of Garvit whose name was entered as son of Rajbakhs and name of mother was written as Smt. Usha. The educational documents were also produced of Master Ankit pertaining to his Class 8th exams in 2000-2001, issued by the Commissioner, Nagar Palika Shri Ganganagar where name of father was recorded as Rajbakhs and further indicated that wife to be Smt. Usha and also that there are three children. Election Card issued by the Election Commission was also produced alongwith one disability certificate issued by the competent authority. 7. In the appellate proceedings, the petitioner has also appeared and opposed the claim of the private respondents. The appellate Authority after considering rival contentions, decided the appeal by order dated 29.04.2017, in favour of Smt. Usha holding that she was wife of late Rajbakhs and set aside the order of dated 02.01.2013, passed by the Consolidation Officer and directed that name of appellant be mutated in place of Rajbakhs being his legal heir. 8. The petitioner further challenged the validity of order dated 29.04.2017, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who also up held the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner. 9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the validity of order dated 04.08.2018, passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad as well as order dated 29.04.2017, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very aspect pertaining to Pariwar Register which was produced by the private respondents was found to be unsustainable inasmuch as the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) has set aside the entry made in favour of Smt. Usha and the said matter was subjudice and no benefit of the same can be given to Smt. Usha. He further submits that entire documents produced by the private respondents were not admissible and the authorities below have committed manifest error in not deciding claim of Smt Usha on the basis of material and documents submitted by the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contention with regard to the very existence of Smt. Usha being wife of Rajbakhs and submits that claim of Smt. Usha was false and fictitious and submitted that once name of Smt. Usha is found to be false and unsustainable, then the petitioner who is sister of Rajbakhs is entitled to succeed the property of Rajbakhs and consequently submits that the orders impugned in the present writ petition deserve to be set aside. 12. On behalf of private respondents, it was submitted that mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of collecting revenue and are summary proceedings in nature and in support of his contention the parties have produced material demonstrating that Smt. Usha has produced various documents in support of her contention that she is wife of late Rajbakhs and both the Courts below has duly considered the said documents indicating that Smt. Usha is wife of Rajbakhs and no error is committed by returning finding in her favour. It is further submitted that the documents relied upon by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation pertaining to Life Insurance receipt and also the educational certificates and other material and these documents clearly indicate that Smt. Usha was wife of late Rajbakhs and on the basis of said material finding has been returned by the authorities below and accordingly it cannot be said that the orders impugned are perverse or not passed on the basis of any material or are arbitrary and consequently it is submitted that both the orders do not deserve to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. The only question which falls for consideration is with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner Smt. Surat Dei has infact succeeded her brother Rajbakhs or by private respondent Smt. Usha and her children, are entitled to claim herself to be the wife of late Rajbakhs. 15. This Court finds that initially claim of Smt. Usha was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, only considering the ground that Pariwar Register was not the document which can be relied upon specially considering the fact that the Gram Pradhan had filed an affidavit clearly stating that they were not aware about the existence of Smt. Usha and also the fact that late Rajbakhs was ever married to Usha, though he has mentioned other material which was filed on behalf of Smt. Usha, who chose to ignore the said material in the light of the fact that an affidavit was filed by the Gram Pradhan which according to him proved the matter beyond doubt, and the Consolidation Officer, relying upon the said evidence rejected the claim of Smt. Usha and allowed the claim of the petitioner. Subsequently, there is no document that could form the basis for questioning the Pariwar Register which is the report of the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), which was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer where it has been stated that claim of Smt. Usha was allowed. Recall application has been preferred by the petitioner which is pending, accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to present matter that present dispute is with regard to determination of ownership and same is pending before the authority concerned and accordingly, no finding can be returned at this stage relying upon the Pariwar Register. 16. This Court is of the considered view that apart from the Pariwar Register there were other material available on record which clearly point out towards the fact that Smt. Usha was wife of late Rajbakhs. The said material was in the form of receipt of LIC and also the certificate issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Board Rajasthan, Ajmer and also the Admit Card issued by the Rajasthan Government in favour of son of Smt. Usha. This Court finds that those documents were never considered by the Consolidation Officer nor it can be established that the said documents are false and fabricated and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have relied upon these documents to return a finding in favour of Smt. Usha. 17. Accordingly, this Court also do not find any reason to doubt the validity of these documents and once it is found that there was sufficient material which has been relied upon the authorities below, have returned finding in favour of Smt. Usha, it cannot be said that the orders have been passed without application of mind or that they have been passed in absence of any material. 18. Once it has been found that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of material available on record, this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, question of sufficiency of evidence would not be an issue which ought to be considered at this stage. 19. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the authorities below were only exercising summary jurisdiction to make mutation entries in the revenue records. This is not the case where right of inheritance were being decided by the authorities below and in case party feel aggrieved or are not satisfied they are at liberty to approach the competent forum. 20. In the light of above, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025/A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench