Seven decades after predecessors of one Sarafat Ali bought 15.5-bigha land in Narsipur Kalan village of Haridwar district in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court has finally settled the dispute that spanned across four generations.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria on June 23 finally gave a quietus to the dispute as it upheld the June 4, 1957, sale deed which was at the core of the litigation.
Interestingly, the dispute was older than the Supreme Court judges who mandatorily retire at 65.
“We are of the considered opinion that the High Court as well as the Consolidation Authorities committed manifest error in treating the sale deed dated 04.06.1957 as void and in disregarding the same based on immaterial discrepancies relating to the attesting witness,” the Bench said.
“The cumulative effect of the registered sale deed, the presumption attaching thereto, the absence of any substantive challenge alleging forgery or fraud, and the failure of the respondents to elicit any material contradiction in the testimony of the attesting witness, clearly render the findings recorded by the Consolidation Authorities and affirmed by the High Court unsustainable in law,” it said.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Mishra set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court.
“What initially commenced as proceedings for mutation gradually traversed into the realm of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the consolidation framework, though its odyssey across multiple forums only culminated in futility, with the authorities below concurrently holding that the appellants had failed to prove the execution of the said sale deed, thereby compelling them to seek refuge before this court,” Justice Mishra wrote.
The sale deed in question was executed in favour of Ali’s predecessors—then minors—who claimed to have remained in possession of the 15.5 bigha land in Narsipur Kalan village of Haridwar district since then. Mutation of the land was done in favour of Ali’s predecessors in 1984 after one of the sellers chose to withdraw his objection.
However, when they sought recognition of their rights over the land as Bhumidhar during consolidation proceedings in 1991, the Consolidation Officer initially allowed their claim but reopened the matter after other co-tenure holders filed objections.
The Consolidation Officer rejected the appellants’ claim in 1999 on the ground that the sale deed had not been properly proved and that it was void under Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
The appellants moved the top court after the High Court dismissed their petition in 2017 and upheld the findings of the Consolidation Officer.
The top court upheld the validity of the sale deed, saying, “The challenge was not founded upon any allegation that the executants were deceived as to the character of the document, nor that the transaction suffered from fraud of such nature as would render the instrument void ab initio. At the highest, the objections raised pertained only to peripheral discrepancies in proof. Such circumstances, by no stretch, could justify disregarding a registered conveyance carrying a presumption of validity in law.”
The appellants have consistently asserted possession pursuant to the sale deed, and significantly, such assertion has not been effectively controverted by the respondents, it noted.
