RAM AVADH Vs. RAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd of May, 1998 passed by a learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in W.P. No. 2016 of 1981 whereby the High Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants against an order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur holding the sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969 in favour of the appellants to be illegal.

(2.) This case has a chequered history, which would be clear from the following facts leading to the filing of this appeal. The appellants alleged that by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969, they are the vendees of 1/2 of the land in Khata No. 98 (in short "the suit property") recorded in the name of the vendors viz., Bhagirati, Putai, Ram Newaj, Matadin, Bachai and Ram Avadh alias Avadhu (in short "Bhagirati and Ors.") who are co-tenure holders with the respondents. A notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "the Act") was issued for consolida tion operation. The appellants filed objections under Section 9(2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer for recording their names in place of Bhagirati and Ors. in the revenue records contending that they had obtained the registered sale deed dated 21st of May, 1969 but by mistake of the Lekhpal, their names could not be recorded in the revenue records. The respondents also filed objections claiming that Bhagirati and ors. or their father Faqir had no share in the suit property and that the suit property belonged to one Sanehi exclusively and therefore, Bhagirati and Ors. did not have any right to sell the same. Accordingly, the respondents strongly contested the case of the appellants who prayed for inclusion of their names in place of Bhagirati and Ors. By an order dated 15th of March 1970, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the appellants and directed that their names be recorded against the suit property. The respondents preferred an appeal under section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but the same was dismissed by the or der dated 18th of December, 1970. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a revi sion under Section 48 of the Act before the Assistant Director - Consolidation, which was allowed by an order dated 16th of August 1971. Against this order passed in revision, the appellants filed a writ petition being WP No. 1797 of 1971 and the same was allowed on 14th of November, 1978 and the matter remanded to the Assis tant Director - Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh. The Assistant Direc tor-Consolidation allowed the revision this time also by his order dated 20th of Feb ruary 1981. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court being 2016 of 1981, which, however, was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 22nd of May 1998. It is this decision of the High Court, which is now impugned in this appeal.

(3.) Before we proceed further, considering the fact that concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer-Consolidation were set aside by the Assistant Director-Consolidation in revision, whose decision was affirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, we deem it expedient to look at the findings of High Court and the Consolidation Officer. Let us first look at the findings of the High Court relying on which the writ peti tion of the appellants was dismissed. The findings are as under :-