{"file_name": "2024_10_1855_1875_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1855 : 2024 INSC 820\n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. \nv. \nSami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\n\n(Civil Appeal No(s). 9739-40 of 2011)\n\n24 October 2024\n\n[Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nIssue as regards the shares of the parties in the disputed land. High \nCourt whether justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy \nDirector of Consolidation in revision and holding that the appellants \nhad 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 \nexcluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged \nto the respondents. Consolidation authorities whether erred in alloting \n1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. \n\nHeadnotes†\n\nUttar  Pradesh  Consolidation  of  Holdings Act,  1953  –  ss.9(2), \n11(1) – High Court held that the appellants had 1/12 share jointly in \nthe plots comprised in Khata Nos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. \n35, 37, 111 and 112 exclusively belonging to the respondents – It \nalso held that the consolidation authorities erroneously alloted \n1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on the \npremise that the land was a joint family property:\n\nHeld: No error or perversity in the view taken by the High Court – \nThe concept of joint family property which is prevalent amongst the \nHindus is not known amongst the Muslims – Authorities were not \njustified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining the \nshare of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans – High \nCourt  duly  considered  the  claim  of  the  appellants  as  well  as  of \nthe respondents and held that in so far claim of the appellants to \nplot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 of Khata No. 99 and plot No. 115 \nof Khata No. 100 were concerned, predecessor-in-interest of the \nappellants  himself  had  relinquished  those  lands  in  favour  of  the \nrespondents – Relinquishment deed was registered and was never \nquestioned by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants during \nhis lifetime – Further, validity of the lease in question cannot be \ndisputed by the appellants – High Court concurred with the finding \n\n* Author\n\n\f1856 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nrecorded by the revisional authority and rightly dismissed the writ \npetition filed by the appellants – Appellants entitled to 1/12 share in \nthe land comprised in the lease deed and not 1/2 as was wrongly \nheld by consolidation authorities. [Paras 22-24]\n\nUttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – Scheme \nof the Act – Stated.\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nAttar Singh v. State of U.P [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928 : AIR 1959 \nSC 564; Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2007 SCC \nOnLine All 2196 – referred to.\n\nList of Acts\n\nUttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; U.P. Zamindari \nAbolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.\n\nList of Keywords\n\nCo-tenancy; Consolidation Officer; Deputy Director of Consolidation; \nConsolidation authorities; Assistant Settlement Officer; Revisional \nauthority  Shares  of  the  parties;  Common  ancestor;  Disputed \nland;  Disputed  khatas;  Agricultural  holdings;  Consolidation  of \nHoldings;  Concept  of  joint  family  property  not  known  amongst \nthe Muslims; Hindu law; Mohammedans; Predecessor-in-interest; \nRelinquishment deed; Lease deed; Revision application/petitions; \nNo error apparent on the face of record.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 9739-40 \nof 2011\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2009 of the High Court \nof Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 6635 of 1974 and CMWP No. \n18 of 1975\n\nWith\n\nContempt Petition (C) No. 194 of 2022\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nM.Z.  Chaudhary,  Shariq  Zaidi, Aftab Ali  Khan,  Sayyad  Mansoor, \nMs. Mansi Chahal, Tabarak Hussain, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Shoaid \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1857\n\nAhmad Khan, Kapil Sagar, Aftab Ali Khan, Syed Mehdi Imam, Atif \nShuhrawardy, Tabrez Ahmad, Pankaj Kumar, S.S. Chauhan, Atif \nSuhrawardy, Mrs. Shamama Anis, Pankaj Kumar, Sharad Chauhan, \nAdvs. for the appearing parties.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nUjjal Bhuyan, J.\n\nHeard learned counsel for the parties.\n\n2.  The two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment \nand order dated 05.01.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High \nCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 \nof 1974 (Nisar Ahmad and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, \nSultanpur and Ors.) and in Writ Petition No.18 of 1975 (Sami Ullah \nand Anr. Vs. Nisar Ahmed and Ors.). By the aforesaid judgment and \norder  dated  05.01.2009,  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.6635  of  1974 \nwas dismissed and Writ Petition No.18 of 1975 has been allowed. \n\n3.  By order dated 27.04.2009, this Court had issued notice on the special \nleave petition as well as on the prayer for interim relief. Subsequently, \nby order dated 15.01.2010, both the parties were directed to maintain \nstatus quo prevailing as on 15.01.2010. Thereafter, by order dated \n03.11.2011, leave was granted directing the status quo order to be \ncontinued in the meantime.\n\n4.  At  the  outset,  it  may  be  useful  to  make  a  brief  reference  to  the \nrelevant facts. Zahoor Ahmed, son of Abdul Shakoor, father of the \nappellants,  had  moved  the  Consolidation  Officer,  Sultanpur  under \nSection  9(2)  of  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Consolidation  of  Holdings Act, \n1953  (briefly  ‘the  1953  Act’  hereinafter)  raising  a  dispute  as  to \nKhata Nos. 99 and 100 of village Bhati Jarouli of Miranpur, District \nSultanpur, U.P., recorded in the name of respondent Sami Ullah and \nothers. Zahoor Ahmed claimed co-tenancy in both the Khatas to the \nextent of half share. Since the dispute could not be reconciled, he \napproached the Consolidation Officer. After notice and hearing, the \nConsolidation  Officer  passed  an  order  dated  06.12.1972  directing \nthat the name of Zahoor Ahmed be entered as a co-tenant in Khata \nNo. 99 and accordingly partition be made. The shares of Sami Ullah \nand another (respondents herein) were determined to the extent of \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1858 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n1/4 each. However, the claim of Zahoor Ahmed of co-tenancy qua \nKhata  No.  100  was  rejected. Accordingly,  direction  was  issued  to \nintimate the parties and to correct the areas of the land in respect \nof the parties so determined by the Consolidation Officer. \n\n5.  Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  dated  06.12.1972,  respondents \nSami Ullah and others filed appeals before the Assistant Settlement \nOfficer under Section 11(1) of the 1953 Act. Similarly, Zahoor Ahmed \nalso filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the 1953 Act against the \nsaid order dated 06.12.1972 rejecting his claim qua Khata No. 100. \nBy order dated 25.04.1973, the appellate authority i.e. the Assistant \nSettlement Officer, Sultanpur dismissed all the appeals. In other words, \norder of the Consolidation Officer dated 06.12.1972 was upheld.\n\n6.  Thereafter,  respondents  Sami  Ullah  and  others  filed  a  revision \napplication before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur \n(‘Deputy Director’, hereinafter). Likewise, the legal heirs of Zahoor \nAhmed,  Nisar  Ahmed  and  others  (‘appellants’  herein)  also  filed \nrevision before the Deputy Director against rejection of their appeal. \nBy  the  order  dated  20.09.1974,  the  Deputy  Director  opined  that \nZahoor Ahmed was not entitled to get share in the above Khatas and \naccordingly the order of the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by the \nAssistant Settlement Officer i.e. the appellate authority was modified. \nDeputy  Director  while  dismissing  the  revision  of  Zahoor Ahmed, \nNisar Ahmed  and  others  allowed  the  revision  of  the  respondent \nSami Ullah and others. \n\n7.  Appellants thereafter preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of \n1974 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (briefly ‘the \nHigh Court’ hereinafter). By the judgment and order dated 05.01.2009, \nthe High Court held that Deputy Director was not justified in importing \nprinciples  of  Hindu  law  while  determining  the  share  of  the  parties \nwho  were  admittedly  Mohammedans. Accordingly,  the  High  Court \nheld that the appellants have 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised \nin  Khata  Nos.  98  and  99  excluding  plot  Nos.  35,  37,  111  and  112 \nwhich  exclusively  belongs  to  the  respondents  Sami  Ullah  and  his \nbrother Badlu, sons of Abdul Ghafoor. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Writ \nPetition No. 6635 of 1974 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 18 \nof 1975 was allowed.\n\n8. \n\nIt  is  this  judgment  and  order  dated  05.01.2009  which  came  to  be \nassailed in the related special leave petitions and upon leave being \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1859\n\ngranted, the present civil appeals came to be registered. \n\n9.  While learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the High \nCourt was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy \nDirector in revision thereby adversely affecting the rights of the parties, \nlearned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the \nimpugned order. He submits that the order of the High Court is a well-\nreasoned and balanced order and therefore should not be disturbed.\n\n10.  Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received \n\nthe due consideration of the Court.\n\n11.  Zahoor Ahmed,  the  predecessor  in  interest  of  the  appellants,  had \napproached the Consolidation Officer under Section 9(2) of the 1953 \nAct raising a dispute regarding Khata Nos. 99 and 100. It may be \nmentioned that the Khata No. 99 was recorded in the name of Sami \nUllah  and  Badlu  (the  respondents)  whereas  Khata  No.  100  was \nrecorded in the name of Sami Ullah alone. Zahoor Ahmed claimed \nco-tenancy  in  both  the  Khatas  to  the  extent  of  1/2  share.  He  also \nclaimed half share in Khata No. 100. Since the dispute could not be \nreconciled, the same was raised before the Consolidation Officer.\n\n11.1.  According to Zahoor Ahmed, the land in question were acquired \nby Mohammad and Abdul Ghafoor, father of Allah Bux, jointly \nfor  the  benefit  of  the  entire  family.  Thus,  they  were  in  joint \noccupation  of  the  land. At  the  time  of  death  of Allah  Bux, \nGhafoor was the ‘karta’ of the family and all the sons of Allah \nBux remained in joint occupation. Zahoor Ahmed claimed that \nhe was in joint occupation of the land in question, paying land \nrevenue to the extent of his share. Thus, he claimed half share \nin the land in question by way of pedigree.\n\n11.2.  According to the respondents, their father had acquired the lands \ncovered by Khata No. 98 through lease; their father had five \nshares in the said land and one share belonged to Mohammad \nwho died in 1942. Though he was survived by his daughter, as \nper family custom, she did not have any share in the lands in \nquestion. Respondents claimed one share in this land as well. \nThus, according to the respondents, they had 11/12 share in \nKhata No. 98 and 1/12 share belonged to Zahoor.\n\n11.3.  In  so  far  Khata  No.  99  is  concerned,  according  to  the \nrespondents,  these  lands  were  acquired  by  their  father \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1860 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nand  devolved  upon  them  on  the  death  of  their  father.  They \nchallenged  the  claim  of  Zahoor  to  such  land  on  the  ground \nthat  Zahoor  had  made  a  dastbardari  in  their  favour  in  the \nyear  1948.  Plot  Nos.  45,  57,  111  and  112  were  claimed  by \nthe  respondents  as  having  been  acquired  by  their  father \nGhafoor. They, however, admitted half share claim of Zahoor \nAhmed in respect of Khata No. 99 while denying the claim to \nthe  remaining  extent  of  half.  Plot  No.  115  of  Khata  No.  100 \nwas wholly claimed by the respondents denying the claim of \nZahoor to the extent of half share in the said land.\n\n11.4.  Consolidation  Officer  upon  consideration  of  the  pleadings  of \nthe parties in dispute had framed the following issues: \n\n(i)  Whether  respondents  were  entitled  to  11/12  share  of \n\nKhata No. 98?\n\n(ii)  Whether  Zahoor Ahmed  was  entitled  to  half  share  of \n\nKhata No. 98?\n\n(iii)  What was the share of the parties in respect of Khata No. 98?\n\n(iv)  Whether Zahoor Ahmed was co-tenant of Khata No. 99 \n\nas claimed?\n\n(v)  Whether  the  respondents  were  recorded  as  the  sole \n\nowner of the land covered by Khata No. 99?\n\n(vi)  Whether Sami Ullah and Badlu i.e. the respondents were \nentitled to 11/12 share in respect of plot Nos. 31, 94, 95, \n96, 97 and 99 etc. as claimed?\n\n(vii)  Whether  plot  Nos.  35,  57,  111  and  112  were  the  sole \n\nsirdari of the respondents as claimed?\n\n(viii)  What were the share of the parties qua Khata No. 99?\n\n(ix)  Whether Zahoor was co-tenant of plot No. 115 of Khata \n\nNo. 100 as claimed?\n\n(x)  Whether the respondents were the sole owner of the land \n\nof Khata No. 100?\n\n(xi)  What were the shares of the parties qua Khata No. 100?\n\n11.5.  After  noting  that  it  was  an  admitted  position  that  neither  the \ndaughter in the family nor their sons got any share in the lands \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1861\n\nbelonging to the family, Consolidation Officer observed that the \nappellants and the respondents were recorded as co-tenant of \nthe land in Khata No. 98. Respondents also admitted the share \nof the appellants in plot Nos. 94, 95, 96, 99, 100 etc. to the \nextent of 1/12. Thus, according to the Consolidation Officer, in \nview of the admission made by the respondents, Zahoor Ahmed \nwas the co-tenant and that the dispute was only regarding his \nshare.  Further,  the  Consolidation  Officer  remarked  that  the \nonus was on the respondent to prove that they were entitled \nto 11/12 share of the land. Consolidation Officer also noticed \nthat there was a lease deed of 1922 but what was to be seen \nwas whether the lands were acquired jointly.\n\n11.6.  After discussing the evidence and the materials on record, the \nConsolidation Officer vide the order dated 06.12.1972 held that \nZahoor Ahmed was in occupation of the plots of land bearing \nNos. 95, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 107 and as many as five plots \nbeing 99, 100, 107 etc. were being cultivated by Zahoor. The \nKhasra for the relevant years indicated that Zahoor was all along \nin occupation of the above lands; his name was recorded over \nan area of 3 bighas 10 biswas of lands and he also paid land \nrevenue in respect of which large number of revenue receipts \nwere on record. Thus, the Consolidation Officer concluded that \nthe  lands  were  acquired  jointly  when  Zahoor Ahmed  was  a \nminor and his share would be half of the land. Therefore, he \nwas entitled to half share in Khata Nos. 98 and 99. In so far \nplot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 is concerned, it was held that \nthe same remained the exclusive property of the respondents. \nThe Consolidation Officer declared that Zahoor Ahmed being \nthe co-tenant of Khata No. 99 was entitled to half share thereof. \nAccordingly, it was ordered that the name of Zahoor Ahmed be \nentered as a co-tenant in Khata No. 99 and partition be made \nin Khata Nos. 98 and 99 in the following manner:\n\n(i)\n\nZahoor\n\n(ii) Sami Ullah\n\n(iii) Badlu\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n1/2\n\n1/4\n\n1/4 \n\n12.  Against  the  aforesaid  order  dated  06.12.1972,  altogether  three \nappeals  were  filed  before  the  appellate  authority  i.e.  Assistant \nSettlement  Officer-  one  by  Zahoor Ahmed  and  the  other  two  by \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1862 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe respondents. The appeals were filed under Section 11(1) of the \n1953 Act. \n\n12.1.  By  the  common  judgment  and  order  dated  25.4.1973,  the \nappellate authority i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer, Sultanpur \ndismissed all the three appeals. While dismissing the appeals, \nthe appellate authority noted that in the basic year, Khata No.98 \nwas recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu and also \nin  the  name  of  Zahoor Ahmed.  Khata  Nos.99  and  100  were \nrecorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. Zahoor Ahmed \nfiled objection under Section 9 of the 1953 Act contending that \nin Khata No.99 his name should be recorded. He claimed 1/2 \nshare in Khata Nos.98 and 99 contending that Satai was the \ncommon ancestor of both the parties and that he had acquired \nthe disputed land from the joint family. According to him, Allah \nBux and Mohammad were the sons of Satai. Abdul Ghafoor \nwas the elder son of Allah Bux and became the ‘karta’ of the \njoint family. After the death of Allah Bux, Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul \nShakoor  and  Mohd.  Ismail,  being  sons  of Allah  Bux,  came \ninto  possession  of  the  disputed  land  jointly.  Mohd.  Ismail \ndied issueless. The disputed land was recorded in the name \nof Sami Ullah and Badlu being the sons of Abdul Ghafoor as \n‘karta’ of joint family.\n\n12.2.  Zahoor stated that at the time of death of his father, he was a \nminor and lived with Abdul Ghafoor. Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul \nShakoor had 1/2 share in the disputed land. Accordingly, both \nthe parties were in possession of the disputed land. \n\n12.3.  Sami  Ullah  and  Badlu  objected  to  the  claim  of  Zahoor  and \ncontended  that  the  land  in  Khata  No.99  was  acquired  by \nAbdul Ghafoor. Sami Ullah and Badlu admitted 1/12 share in \nthe disputed land and denied share of Zahoor in plot No.115 \nof Khata No.100.\n\n12.4.  The primary authority i.e. the Consolidation Officer on the basis \nof the materials of record and the evidence adduced decided \nthe  share  of  Zahoor  in  Khata  Nos.  98  and  99  at  1/2  and \ndismissed the objection of Zahoor qua plot No. 115 of Khata \nNo. 100. Therefore, Zahoor filed Appeal No. 43 in respect of plot \nNo. 115 of Khata No.100. Sami Ullah and Badlu filed Appeal  \nNos. 50 and 51 against the decision of the Consolidation Officer \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1863\n\ndeclaring 1/2 share in the disputed land of Khata Nos. 98 and \n99 as belonging to Zahoor.\n\n12.5.  The  appellate  authority  was  of  the  view  that  plot  No.35  was \nrecorded only in the name of Allah Bux. Zahoor had relinquished \nin favour of Sami Ullah on 30.06.1948. Zahoor also relinquished \nthe share of Ismail. Sami Ullah had filed the patta for the first \ntime  before  the  Consolidation  Officer  on  07.05.1992.  In  the \nsettlement  exercise,  some  disputed  land  was  acquired  by \nAllah Bux and Mohammed jointly. Plot Nos.111 and 112 were \nrecorded in the name of Abdul Ghafoor. The appellate authority \nnoted the submission made on behalf of Zahoor that he was \nin  possession  of  the  disputed  land  in  Khata  Nos.98  and  99 \nand paying land revenue and took the view that the disputed \nland  was  in  possession  of  the  joint  family.  When  Shakoor, \nfather  of  Zahoor,  had  died  Zahoor  was  a  minor.  Thereafter, \nfather  of  Sami  Ullah  brought  up  Ghafoor  and  Ghafoor  lived \nas a member of the joint family. Though the name of Ghafoor \nwas not recorded, Sami Ullah admitted 11/12 share of Zahoor. \nAccording to the appellate authority, Zahoor was in continuous \npossession  over  the  disputed  land.  The  revenue  receipts \nindicated that he was in possession of 1/2 share thereof and \npaying the revenue in respect of the said land. As regards plot \nNo. 115 of Khata No. 100, the appellate authority concurred \nwith the view of the primary authority. Therefore, the appellate \nauthority i.e. the Assistant Settlement Officer upheld the order \nof the Consolidation Officer and dismissed all the appeals. \n\n13.  Two revision petitions were filed under Section 48 of the 1953 Act, \nRevision No. 3302 was filed by the respondents and Revision No. \n3312 was filed by the appellants, against the judgment and order dated \n25.04.1973 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in appeal. \n\n13.1.  The revisional authority i.e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation \nnoted  that  according  to  Zahoor,  the  disputed  land  was  joint \nfamily  property  and  as  such,  his  share  in  it  was  1/2.  Khata  \nNo. 98 was recorded in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu on \nthe one hand and Zahoor on the other hand whereas Khata  \nNo. 99 was recorded only in the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. \nConsolidation Officer had allowed the name of Zahoor Ahmed \nto  be  in  half  of  Khata  No.  98  and  Khata  No.  99;  however, \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1864 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ndismissed  the  claim  of  Zahoor Ahmed  in  respect  of  plot  No. \n115 of Khata No. 100. Against the aforesaid decision, appeal \nwas filed but the same was dismissed. It was thereafter that \nthe revision came to be filed by Zahoor Ahmed.\n\n13.2.  On the other hand, Sami Ullah claimed that Zahoor had 1/12 \nshare in Khata No. 98 as well as in Khata No. 99 and none \nin  respect  of  plot  No.  115  of  Khata  No.  100.  His  objection \nwas allowed in respect of plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 but \nwas dismissed in respect of the other two Khatas. Therefore, \nhe also filed appeals before the Assistant Settlement Officer \nwhich were however dismissed. Thereafter, the related revision \npetition came to be filed claiming 5/6th share in Khata No. 98 \nand exclusively claimed Khata No. 99 for himself and Badlu.\n\n13.3.  During  the  revision  proceedings,  Zahoor  Ahmed  died  and \nhe  was  substituted  by  his  legal  heirs  (sons)  Nisar Ahmed, \nIrshan Ahmed  and  Ishtiyag Ahmed.  The  revisional  authority \nconsidered the claim of Sami Ullah. Zahoor Ahmed had disputed \n1/12th  share  in  Khata  No.  98  because  in  the  year  1922,  the \ndisputed land was taken on lease by Abdul Ghafoor: 5/6th share \nfrom  Mohammad  Ismail  and  1/6th  share  from  the  zamindar. \nMohammad Ismail died in the year 1942. After his death, his \n1/6th share got devolved in 1/12th share, viz, in plot Nos. 35, \n57, 111 and 112. It was noted that Khata No. 99 was recorded \nin the name of Sami Ullah and Badlu. The revisional authority \nnoted on the basis of the evidence adduced that Shakoor had \nexpired in the year 1930. Thereafter, the name of Zahoor was \nrecorded  as  a  member  of  the  joint  family  in  Khata  No.  98. \nFrom the materials on record, the revisional authority noticed \nthat Zahoor was in possession and paying rent in respect of \nthe disputed land. However, the revisional authority accepted \nthe  contention  of  Sami  Ullah  that  Zahoor  had  relinquished \nhis share in respect of plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 by way \nof relinquishment deed of the year 1948. Deputy Director i.e. \nthe revisional authority noted that relinquishment was by way \nof  a  relinquishment  deed  and  that  Zahoor  had  admitted  his \nsignature on it. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve \nthe contention of Sami Ullah because in the year 1948, Zahoor \nhad relinquished his share in plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112. \nFurther, possession of Zahoor Ahmed was also not recorded. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1865\n\nThus Zahoor Ahmed was held to be not entitled to any share in \nso far the said plots were concerned. The lower authorities had \nignored the relinquishment deed which vitiated their respective \norders. On the basis of the relinquishment deed, the Deputy \nDirector allowed the revision of Sami Ullah in respect of plot \nNos. 35, 57, 111 and 112. As regards claim of Zahoor in respect \nof  plot  No.  115  of  Khata  No.  100,  the  Deputy  Director  was \nnot convinced about the said claim. That being  the position, \nthe  revisional  authority  upheld  the  view  taken  by  the  lower \nauthorities and dismissed the revision of Zahoor Ahmed.\n\n14.  Assailing  the  above  order  of  the  revisional  authority,  appellants \npreferred  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  6635  of  1974  whereas \nrespondents preferred Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 before the High \nCourt. High Court heard both the writ petitions together as the two writ \npetitions arose out of the same consolidation proceedings in respect \nof Khata Nos. 98, 99 and 100 in village Bhati Jarouli, Sultanpur.\n\n14.1.  High Court traced the pedigree of the parties. Satai was the \ncommon ancestor and he had two sons, namely, Allah Bux and \nMohammad. Mohammad died issueless in the year 1942. Allah \nBux had three sons i.e. Abdul Ghafoor who died in 1946, Abdul \nShakoor  who  died  in  1930  and  Mohammad  Ismail  who  died \nissueless in 1935. High Court pointed out that the dispute was \nbetween the two branches of Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Shakoor. \nPetitioners  of  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  6635  of  1974  i.e. \nthe appellants represented the branch of Abdul Shakoor. The \ncontesting respondents of the said writ petition i.e. respondents \nherein represented the branch of Abdul Ghafoor. In the basic \nyear, the entries were recorded in the following manner:\n\n(i)  Khata  No.  98  was  recorded  in  the  names  of  the \nrespondents Sami Ullah and Badlu as well as in the name \nof Zahoor Ahmed (father of the appellants).\n\n(ii)  Khata No. 99 was recorded in the names of Sami Ullah \n\nand Badlu (the respondents).\n\n(iii)  Khata No. 100 was exclusively recorded in the name of \n\nSami Ullah (respondent No. 1).\n\n14.2.  Zahoor Ahmed,  father  of  the  appellants,  had  filed  objection \nbefore  the  Consolidation  Officer  claiming  co-tenancy  rights \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1866 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nin Khata Nos. 98 and 99 to the extent of half share. He also \nclaimed one half share in plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100.\n\n14.3.  According  to  Zahoor Ahmed  (father  of  the  appellants),  the \ndisputed Khatas were acquired jointly by the common ancestor. \nAfter  the  death  of  Satai  and Allah  Bux,  the  name  of Abdul \nGhafoor was recorded since he had attained majority by that \ntime and Abdul Shakoor was still a minor. Abdul Ghafoor was \n‘karta’  of  the  family  and  he  looked  after Abdul  Shakoor  and \nMohammad Ismail. After the death of Abdul Ghafoor, in view \nof the settlement arrived at between the legal heirs of Abdul \nGhafoor  and  Zahoor Ahmed,  the  parties  were  in  cultivatory \npossession of their respective shares in the disputed Khatas.\n\n14.4.  On the other hand, Sami Ullah and Badlu (respondents) had \ncontended  that  Khata  No.  98  was  taken  on  patta  by Abdul \nGhafoor  and  Mohammad.  In  the  said  patta,  share  of Abdul \nGhafoor  was  mentioned  as  5/6  and  that  of  Mohammad  1/6. \nAfter  the  death  of  Mohammad,  his  share  devolved  in  equal \nproportion upon Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Shakoor. Therefore, \nthe  appellants  who  represents  the  branch  of Abdul  Shakoor \ngot only 1/12 share.\n\n14.5.  The  case  of  the  contesting  objectors  (the  respondents)  with \nregard to plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 comprising Khata No. \n99 was that these plots were their exclusive property in view \nof the registered relinquishment deed dated 30.06.1948 (which \nwas registered on 07.07.1948 and executed by the father of \nthe  appellant  Zahoor Ahmed)  in  favour  of  the  respondents. \nThey contended that the said Khata was neither recorded in \nthe name of Zahoor Ahmed nor was he in possession thereof. \nRespondents were the exclusive owners of plot Nos. 35, 57, \n111 and 112 of Khata No. 99.\n\n14.6.  After  tracing  the  trajectory  of  the  orders  passed  by  the \nConsolidation  Officer,  appellate  authority  i.e.  the Assistant \nSettlement Officer and the revisional authority i.e. the Deputy \nDirector of Consolidation, the High Court noted that the Deputy \nDirector  vide  the  order  dated  20.09.1974  had  confirmed  the \norders  of  the  lower  authorities  with  respect  to  plot  No.  115 \nof  Khata  No.  100  but  had  partly  allowed  the  revision  of  the \nrespondents with respect to plot Nos. 35, 57, 111 and 112 of \nKhata No. 99 as well as of Khata No. 98.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1867\n\n14.7.  High  Court  vide  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated \n05.01.2009  held  that  execution  of  the  relinquishment  deed \nin  respect  of  the  four  plots  of  land  i.e.  plot  Nos.  35,  57,  111 \nand 112 of Khata No. 99 was not denied by Zahoor Ahmed. It \nwas a registered document and thus carried the presumption \nof genuineness. High Court further noted that the appellants \nhad  not  questioned  the  genuineness  and  correctness  of  the \nrelinquishment  deed  at  any  stage  of  the  litigation.  Zahoor \nAhmed was very much alive when the consolidation operation \nhad commenced in the village. Though he filed objections and \nhad the full opportunity to dispute the relinquishment deed, he \ndid not do so. There was no evidence on record to show that \nexecution  of  the  relinquishment  deed  was  ever  disputed  by \nZahoor Ahmed. On the contrary, the stand of Zahoor Ahmed all \nalong was that after the death of his father, he was brought up \nby his uncle Abdul Ghafoor; after attaining the age of majority, \nhe might have executed the said relinquishment deed. In the writ \nproceedings, appellants had contended that they did not admit \nthe genuineness and the binding nature of the relinquishment \ndeed. But such contentions were rejected by the High Court \non the ground that Zahoor Ahmed during his entire lifetime at \nno  point  of  time  had  disputed  the  said  relinquishment  deed. \nEven  otherwise  also,  the  High  Court  found  that  said  plots \nwere  exclusively  recorded  in  the  names  of  the  respondents \nwhich would go to show that Abdul Shakoor had surrendered \nhis  right  and  title  in  favour  of Abdul  Ghafoor.  In  view  of  the \nabove,  High  Court  opined  that  the  finding  recorded  by  the \nDeputy Director of Consolidation in revision was justified and \ncalled for no interference.\n\n14.8.  As regards plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100, High Court noted \nthat all the three authorities below had rejected the claim of the \nappellants holding that the said land belongs to the respondents \nexclusively.  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  also  did  not \npress the writ petition with regard to the said plot. That being the \nposition, High Court found no merit in Civil Misc. Writ Petition \nNo. 6635 of 1974 and the same was accordingly dismissed.\n\n14.9.  In so far Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 filed by the respondents \nis concerned, the challenge was to the finding of co-tenancy \nrecorded by all the authorities below with respect to Khata Nos. \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1868 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n98 and 99 holding that Abdul Ghafoor had half share therein. \nRespondents  (petitioners  in  Writ  Petition  No.  18  of  1975) \nplaced reliance on a lease deed dated 07.05.1922 executed \nby Fateh Bahadur and Jagat Narayan Singh in favour of Abdul \nGhafoor and Mohammad mentioning their respective shares : \nAbdul Ghafoor had 5/6 share and Mohammad had 1/6 share. \nOn  the  death  of  Mohammad,  his  share  devolved  on  Zahoor \nAhmed  to  the  extent  of  1/12  share  and  the  remaining  11/12 \nshare devolved on the respondents. The said patta (lease) was \nrejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that at the \nrelevant time, Zahoor Ahmed was a minor and that the lease \nhad not seen the light of the day nor was it proved. In appeal, \nthe appellate authority held that though the patta (lease) was \nexecuted by two persons, it was signed by only one person i.e. \nFateh Bahadur. High Court considered the lease deed dated \n07.05.1922  and  noted  that  land  was  taken  by  two  persons, \nviz, Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah Bux and Mohammad, son of \nSatai. Abdul Shakoor, father of Zahoor Ahmed was very much \nalive  in  the  year  1922.  He  had  died  some  time  in  the  year \n1930.  It  was  clear  that  the  lease  was  taken  jointly  by Abdul \nGhafoor and Mohammad and not as a joint family property by \nthe two persons. That apart, the concept of joint family property \nprevalent amongst the Hindus was unknown to the Muslims. \nAbdul Ghafoor and Mohammad were the only lessees of the said \nland. High Court held that the lower authorities had misdirected \nthemselves by considering acquisition of the said property by \nAbdul Ghafoor and Mohammad as joint acquisition on behalf of \nthe entire family. The source of acquisition of the said property \nwas  the  lease  deed  dated  07.05.1922  and  in  the  revenue \nrecords, names of the respondents and of Zahoor Ahmed were \nrecorded. The only dispute was with regard to the extent of their \nrespective shares. The authorities below had proceeded to allot \n1/2 share to Zahoor Ahmed on the premise that it was a joint \nfamily property. According to the High Court, the said approach \nwas not legally tenable. The revisional authority was also not \njustified in importing principles of Hindu law while determining \nthe shares of the parties who were admittedly Mohammedans. \nAccordingly, it was held that appellants would get 1/12 share \nin the land comprised in the lease deed and not half (1/2) as \nwas decided by the authorities below. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1869\n\n14.10. In that view of the matter, High Court held that the appellants \nwould  have  1/12  share  in  the  plots  comprised  in  Khata  \nNos. 98 and 99 excluding plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which \nexclusively belonged to the respondents.\n\n14.11. That  being  the  position,  Writ  Petition  No.  18  of  1975  was \n\nallowed.\n\n15.  Thus, against the dismissal of Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 6635 of \n1974 and partly allowing of Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975, the related \nspecial leave petitions were filed. \n\n16.  This  being  the  factual  scenario,  let  us  now  have  a  brief  survey  of \nthe  1953 Act.  The  Uttar  Pradesh  Consolidation  of  Holdings Act, \n1953 (already referred to as ‘the 1953 Act’) is an Act to provide for \nthe  consolidation  of  agricultural  holdings  in  Uttar  Pradesh  for  the \ndevelopment of agriculture. The statement of objects and reasons \nof the 1953 Act is as under: \n\nAfter the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and \nLand  Reforms Act,  1950,  there  was  naturally  a  pressing \ndemand  for  the  consolidation  of  holdings  in  the  State. \nSince  the  complicated  and  numerous  types  of  tenures, \nboth  proprietary  and  cultivatory,  the  greatest  stumbling \nblocks in the way of successful consolidation of holdings, \nhave been abolished it is an opportune time to start this \nwork. The advantages of having in compact blocks all the \nland farmed by one family need only be briefly mentioned. \nBoundary lines should be reduced in “number and extent, \nsaving land and diminishing boundary disputes, larger fields \nwould be possible and time saved in making trips to the \nfields. Further, if land were all one piece barriers, such as \nfences, hedges or ditches could be erected to obtain privacy \nand prevent trespassing, thieving and gleening. The control \nof  irrigation  and  drainage  water  would  be  easier;  control \nof pests, insects and disease would also be less difficult.\n\n16.1.  Thus, as per the statement of objects and reasons, after the \nenforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms \nAct, 1950, there arose the need for consolidation of holdings \nin the State. It was felt that the advantages of having compact \nblocks of all the lands farmed by one family was too well known. \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1870 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nBoundary lines would be reduced in number thereby not only \nsaving  the  lands  but  also  reducing  boundary  disputes.  This \nwould also lead to larger fields with attendant advantages. It \ncould be barricaded properly to prevent trespassing and ensure \nproper irrigation and pest control.\n\n17.  Raison d’etre of the Act was examined by this Court in Attar Singh \nVs. State of U.P..1 This Court observed that the object of the 1953 Act \nis to allot a compact area in lieu of scattered plots to tenure-holders \nso that large scale cultivation would be possible with all its attendant \nadvantages thus leading to reduction of boundary lines. In the process \nlot of land would be saved resulting in lesser number of boundary \ndisputes. While reducing the movement of the farmers from one plot \nto another, consolidation would enure to the benefit of the farmers in \nerecting fences etc. around a compact area to prevent trespassing \nand  thieving.  It  would  also  become  easier  to  control  irrigation  and \ndrainage besides reducing the number of disputes over water. That \napart, pest control etc. would become easier as the farmers would \nhave compact areas for cultivation. This Court observed that such \nadvantages resulting from consolidation of holdings are intended to \nencourage the development of agriculture leading to more production \nof foodgrains, so essential for the community.\n\n18.  Making  a  comparison  of  the  1953  Act  with  the  U.P.  Zamindari \nAbolition  and  Land  Reforms Act,  1950  (U.P. Act  No.  1  of  1951), \na  Single  Bench  of  the Allahabad  High  Court  in  Mool  Chandra  Vs. \nDeputy Director of Consolidation,2 observed that U.P. Act No. 1 of \n1951 was enacted to provide for abolition of the zamindari system \ninvolving intermediaries between the tillers of the soil and the State \nand for acquisition of the right, title and interest over the land by the \ntillers and also to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent \nupon such abolition and acquisition. On the other hand, the primary \nobject of the 1953 Act is consolidation of agricultural holdings for the \ndevelopment  of  agriculture.  It  was  in  this  backdrop  that Allahabad \nHigh Court observed that the 1953 Act has only a limited role to play \nand that is only with regard to consolidation of agricultural holdings \nto facilitate better quality of agriculture. Thus, the 1953 Act does not \n\n1 \n\n2 \n\n[1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928 : AIR 1959 SC 564\n\n2007 SCC OnLine All 2196\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1871\n\ndeal with the grant of substantive rights to the tenure-holders. While \nsubstantive rights are governed by the provisions contained in U.P. \nAct  No.  1  of  1951,  the  1953 Act  is  only  procedural  with  regard  to \nconsolidation of holdings.\n\n19.  Section 3 of the 1953 Act contains the definitions of various words \nand  expressions  used  in  the  said Act. As  per  Section  3(1A),  chak \nmeans the parcel of land allotted to a tenure-holder on consolidation. \nConsolidation  has  been  defined  in  Section  3(2)  to  mean  re-\narrangement  of  holdings  in  a  unit  amongst  several  tenure-holders \nin such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. \nSection 3(2A) defines consolidation area to mean the area in respect \nof which notification under Section 4 has been issued. Section 3(4C) \ndefines holding to mean a parcel or parcels of land held under one \ntenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. \nLand has been defined in Section 3(5) to mean land held or occupied \nfor  purposes  connected  with  agriculture,  horticulture  and  animal \nhusbandry, including pisciculture and poultry farming. Rectangulation \nas defined in Section 3(8A) means the process of dividing the area \nof a unit into rectangles and parts of rectangles of convenient size \nwith a view to regulating the allotment of chaks during consolidation. \nTenure-holder has been defined in Section 3(11) to mean a bhumidhar \neither with transferrable rights or with non-transferrable rights. Unit \nhas been defined in Section 3(11A) to mean a village or part thereof \nor two or more villages or parts thereof for which a single scheme \nof consolidation is to be framed.\n\n19.1.  Section  4  deals  with  declaration  and  notification  regarding \nconsolidation. As per sub-Section 1(a), the State Government, \nwhere it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought \nunder consolidation operations, may make a declaration to that \neffect to be published in the official gazette whereupon it shall \nbe lawful for any empowered officer or authority to enter upon \nthe declared land and carry out survey etc. Thus, consolidation \nproceedings start in a district or part thereof with the issuance \nof notification under Section 4 which besides being published \nin the official gazette is also to be published as a public notice \nat convenient places of the district or part thereof.\n\n19.2.  The consequences which would ensue following publication of \nnotification  under  Section  4  are  enumerated  in  Section  5(2). \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1872 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nAmongst the various consequences, it is important to note that \nonce a declaration is notified, every proceeding for correction of \nrecords and every suit or proceedings in respect of declaration \nof rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration \nor adjudication of any other right at any stage of the proceedings \nwould stand abated. Ofcourse, such abatement would have to \nbe preceded by notice and hearing. That apart, such abatement \nwould be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected \nto  agitate  the  rights  or  interest  in  dispute  in  the  said  suits  or \nproceedings  before  the  appropriate  consolidation  authorities \nunder and in accordance with the 1953 Act.\n\n19.3.  While Section 7 deals with revision of village map, Section 8 \nspeaks about revision of the field book etc upon such revision \nof village map. Section 8A provides for preparation of statement \nof  principles  to  be  followed  in  carrying  out  the  consolidation \noperations.  Section  9  on  the  other  hand  provides  for  issue \nof  extracts  from  records  and  statements  and  publications \nof records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8A and the issue of \nnotices  for  inviting  objections  under  sub-section  (1)  thereof. \nSub-section (2) empowers the noticee to file objections within \nthe prescribed period disputing the correctness or nature of the \nentries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom or \nin the statement of principles or the need for partition. Section \n9A deals with disposal of cases relating to claims to land and \npartition of joint holdings. Section 9B provides for disposal of \nobjections on the basis of the statement of principles.\n\n19.4.  Any  party  to  a  proceeding  under  Section  9  and  who  is \naggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or \nthe Consolidation Officer, as the case may be, may prefer an \nappeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, within the \nperiod prescribed under Section 11. The appellate authority after \nproviding due opportunity of hearing to the parties shall pass \nappropriate order in appeal which shall be final. Sub-Section (2) \nof Section 11 makes a declaration that the Settlement Officer, \nConsolidation, hearing an appeal under sub-Section (1) shall \nbe deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction.\n\n19.5.  While the appellate order is final, the Director of Consolidation \nhas been conferred the power of revision and reference under \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1873\n\nSection  48.  He  can  exercise  the  powers  under  Section  48 \neither  on  a  reference  or  suo  moto.  The  said  power  is  to  be \nexercised by the Director of Consolidation to satisfy himself as \nto the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, \nlegality or propriety of any order (other than an interlocutory \norder) passed by the subordinate authorities.\n\n20.  This is broadly the scheme of the Act. \n\n21.  Before  we  analyse  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  of  the  High \nCourt, it will be useful to have the pedigree of the parties in the form \nof a chart which is as under:\n\nSatai\n\nAllah Bux\n\nMohammad\n\nAbdul Ghafoor\n\nShakoor\n\nMohd. Ismail\n\nSami Ullah\n\nBadlu\n\nZahoor\n\n22.  As  can  be  seen  from  the  chart  above,  the  dispute  is  between  the \nlegal  heirs  of  Shakoor  i.e.  the  appellants  and  the  legal  heirs  of \nGhafoor  i.e.  the  respondents.  High  Court  has  duly  considered  the \nclaim of the appellants as well as of the respondents and has taken \nthe  view  that  in  so  far  claim  of  the  appellants  to  plot  Nos.  35,  57, \n111 and 112 of Khata No. 99 and plot No. 115 of Khata No. 100 are \nconcerned, Zahoor Ahmed himself had relinquished those lands in \nfavour of the respondents. Relinquishment deed is a registered one \nand was never questioned by Zahoor Ahmed during his lifetime. In \nthat  view  of  the  matter,  the  High  Court  concurred  with  the  finding \nrecorded by the revisional authority and rightly dismissed Civil Misc. \nWrit Petition No. 6635 of 1974 filed by the appellants.\n\n23. \n\nIn so far Writ Petition No. 18 of 1975 is concerned, the same was \nfiled by the respondents, being aggrieved by the declaration made \nby  the  consolidation  authorities  that  appellant  would  get  half  (1/2) \nshare  in  the  plots  comprised  in  Khata  Nos.  98  and  99  excluding \n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f1874 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nplot  Nos.  35,  57,  111  and  112  which  exclusively  belonged  to  the \nrespondents. High Court took the view that consolidation authorities \nhad erroneously proceeded to allot half (1/2) share to Zahoor Ahmed \non the premise that the land was a joint family property. High Court \nheld  that  the  authorities  were  not  justified  in  importing  principles \nof  Hindu  law  while  determining  the  share  of  the  parties  who  were \nadmittedly Mohammedans. Thus, the High Court held as follows: \n\nI have given careful consideration to the three orders of the \nauthorities. I also perused copy of the lease deed dated \n07.05.1922. A bare perusal of the said lease deed dated \n07.05.1922  clearly  shows  that  the  said  lease  deed  was \ntaken by two persons, namely, Abdul Ghafoor, son of Allah \nBux, and Mohammad, son of Satai. Abdul Shakoor, father of \nZahoor Ahmed (Objector) was very much alive in the year \n1922. He, according to the finding of the Deputy Director of \nConsolidation, died some time in the year 1930. It shows \nthat the lease was taken jointly by Abdul Ghafoor, son of \nAllah Bux, and Mohammad, son of Satai. The said lease \nwas not taken as joint family property by these persons. \nThe  concept  of  joint  family  property  which  is  prevalent \namongst the Hindus is not known amongst the Muslims. \nAbdul  Ghafoor,  son  of Allah  Bux,  and  Mohammad,  son \nof Satai, were the only lessees and no other person. The \nauthorities below misdirected themselves by considering \nthe said acquisition of the property by Abdul Ghafoor and \nMohammad as joint acquisition for the family. \n\nSo far as the validity of the lease in question is concerned, \nthe same cannot be disputed by the contesting respondents \nNos. 4 to 7 (petitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974). \nIt is not their case that the property was acquired by Abdul \nGhafoor and Mohammad in any other manner. It is also not \ntheir case nor established by them that the said property \nwas acquired by Satai, the common ancestor, or by Abdul \nGhafoor,  father  of  Zahoor Ahmad,  in  any  other  manner. \nSource of acquisition of the said property is the lease deed \nin question dated 07.05.1922. In the revenue records in the \nbasic year, names of Sami Ullah and Badlu (respondents \nNos. 4 and 5) of the connected writ petition and of Zahoor \nAhmad  are  recorded.  Only  dispute  is  with  regard  to  the \nextent of their respective shares therein. The authorities \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1875\n\nbelow have proceeded to allot 1/2 share to Zahoor Ahemed \non the basis that it was a joint property of the family. The \nsaid  approach,  in  my  considered  opinion,  is  not  legally \ntenable. The lease in question was acted upon and was \naccepted as is evident from the extract of khatauni (record \nof rights) of the third settlement, Annexure-2 to writ petition \nNo.  18  of  1975.  The  Deputy  Director  of  Consolidation \nwas not justified in importing principles of Hindu law while \ndetermining the shares of the parties. In a nut shell, the \npetitioners of writ petition No. 6635 of 1974 will get 1/12 \nshare  in  the  land  comprised  in  the  said  lease  deed  and \nnot 1/2 as was wrongly held by consolidation authorities. \n\nIn  view  of  the  above  discussions,  it  is  held  that  the \npetitioners  of  writ  petition  No.  6635  of  1974  have  1/12 \nshare  jointly  in  the  plots  comprised  in  khata  Nos.  98 \nand  99  excluding  plot  Nos.  35,  37,  111  and  112  which \nexclusively belongs to Sami Ullah and his brother Badlu, \nsons of Abdul Ghafoor.\n\n24.  We  do  not  find  any  error  or  infirmity  in  the  view  taken  by  the  High \nCourt.  The  decision  rendered  by  the  High  Court  is  on  a  bundle  of \nfacts agitated and counter agitated by both the parties. It is a factual \ndetermination by the High Court based on the evidence on record. \nWe do not find any perversity in the approach of the High Court or \nany error apparent on the face of record to warrant further scrutiny \nby this Court.\n\n25.  That  being  the  position,  we  are  of  the  view  that  there  is  no  merit \nin the two civil appeals which are accordingly dismissed. However, \nthere shall be no order as to costs.\n\n26. \n\nIn  view  of  the  judgment  passed  in  C.A.  Nos.  9739-9740/2011,  the \nContempt Petition stands closed.\n\nResult of the case:  Civil Appeals dismissed.  \nContempt Petition closed.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey\n\nNisar Ahmad & Ors. v. Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.\f"}