Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shiv Murat

    Uploaded by

    Abhishek
    28 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging a revenue officer's order regarding a land dispute. The land originally belonged to one Mstt. Tapesara, the mother-in-law of the respondent. The appellant claimed the respondent's name was fraudulently entered in revenue records, but the court found the respondent was the legal heir as the widow of Mstt. Tapesara's grandson. Additionally, the parties had entered a compromise settlement verified by an advocate stating they wished to resolve the dispute amicably. The court held the appellant failed to prove their right to the disputed land.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Shiv murat

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging a revenue officer's order regarding a land dispute. The land originally belonged to one Mstt. Tapesara, the mother-in-law of the respondent. The appellant claimed the respondent's name was fraudulently entered in revenue records, but the court found the respondent was the legal heir as the widow of Mstt. Tapesara's grandson. Additionally, the parties had entered a compromise settlement verified by an advocate stating they wished to resolve the dispute amicably. The court held the appellant failed to prove their right to the disputed land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views3 pages

    Shiv Murat

    Uploaded by

    Abhishek
    The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging a revenue officer's order regarding a land dispute. The land originally belonged to one Mstt. Tapesara, the mother-in-law of the respondent. The appellant claimed the respondent's name was fraudulently entered in revenue records, but the court found the respondent was the legal heir as the widow of Mstt. Tapesara's grandson. Additionally, the parties had entered a compromise settlement verified by an advocate stating they wished to resolve the dispute amicably. The court held the appellant failed to prove their right to the disputed land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS V. SATYAWATI & ORS.

    [2014] INSC 255 (4 APRIL 2014)

    FACTS

    The land in question relates to the plot No. 181/1, 184/1, 184/2, 184/3 and 184/3 situated in
    village Madhupur, Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur (now Sonbhadra). The
    name of the appellant is recorded as the Sirdhar of these plots before the consolidation of the
    plots begin. During the process of consolidation, the respondent got her name registered in
    revenue records by fraud as alleged by the appellant.

    The appellant filed an objection under section 12 of the U.P consolidation of Holdings Act
    against the entry of respondent’s name in the records. The consolidate officer allowed the
    objection vide order dated 11.01.1982.

    The respondent filed an appeal in the Court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The
    respondent also filed a fictitious compromise before the Settlement Officer which, was
    procured by the fraud as per the contention of appellant. According to the compromise filed
    by the respondent, the entire disputed property becomes the bhumidari of the respondent and
    respondent becomes the sole beneficiary of the property.

    The appellant challenged the compromise as fraudulent on two ground: Firstly, the appellant
    could not have entered in such compromise which is completely against his favour. Secondly,
    the compromise deeds purports to bear the signature of the appellant which was attested by
    one Shri Prabakhar Nath Advocate. However Prabhakr Nath Advocate was the lawyer of the
    respondent in the appeal filed before the Settlement officer. The appellant claimed that he had
    no knowledge of the compromise deed and never instructed on the deed. The Settlement
    officer passed the ex-parte order dated. 31.01.1983 and disposed of the appeal filed by the
    respondent due to which the entire property was recognized in the name of the respondent.

    The appellant thereafter filed an application for setting side the order of the Settlement officer
    on the ground that the officer had committed the error by not considering the fact that the
    Shri Prabhakar Nath Advocate was the lawyer of the respondent and obtained this ex-parte
    order. It is further claimed that he was not allowed to produce the lead evidence.

    The Settlement Officer dismissed the application of the appellant on the basis of compromise
    deed which was attested by the Advocate.
    The appellant filed a Revision petition against the said order before the Deputy Director of
    consolidation. It was also dismissed vide. Order dated. 03.08.2004.

    The appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ petition. 9899 of 1985 in the Allahabad High Court
    which was also dismissed

    The High Court opined that the learned Settlement Officer had already dismissed the
    application on the basis of the settlement entered into between the parties and verified by
    Advocate Shri Prabhakar Nath who had been the lawyer of the appellant. The court opined
    that the compromise deed had been signed by the appellant and his signature was duly
    verified by the counsel and these facts are not interference by the High Court under Article
    226.

    The appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgement passed by the
    High court in Civil Misc. Writ petition. 9899 of 1985.

    MATTER IN ISSUE

     Whether the name of respondent entered into revenue records by fraud?

    JUDGEMENT

    The land was purchased by one Mstt. Tapesara, who was the mother in law of respondent.
    Further, the settlement deed goes on to show that the respondent is the widow of the only son
    of Shri Mahadeo and his wife Mstt Tapesara who purchased the land. On the other hand, the
    appellant is the son of the Mstt Tapesara’s sister. Mstt Tapesara who doesn’t become the
    legal heir of the property on the death of the owner. Therefore, on the death of the only son of
    the owner of the land, her daughter in law becomes the legal heir of the property in absence
    of any will to prove the contrary. Moreover, the settlement deed states that the two parties
    share amicable relations and wish to live peacefully. Therefore, they have, on their free will,
    entered into a compromise on the issue since the litigation was not in the best interest of
    either of the parties. Thus, in absence of the material evidence on record, the court held that
    the appellant failed to prove his right on the disputed land. The Apex court hold the High
    Court correct in not interfering with the findings of the original and appellate authorities,
    particularly, when both the authorities have concurrently relied upon the compromise deed.
    REFERENCES

     https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86218936/
     SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS V. SATYAWATI & ORS. [2014] INSC 255 (4 APRIL
    2014)

    You might also like