MUNESHWAR Vs. RAJA MOHAMMAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by judgment dated 2/12/1980 of the Allahabad High Court rejecting his objections filed by him under S. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short 'the Consolidation Act') which objections had been upheld by the authorities under that Act.

(2.) CONSOLIDATION proceedings were taken up in the village of the appellant under Ss. 8 and 8-A of the CONSOLIDATION Act. Thereafter, notices were issued inviting objections to the records so prepared. The land in question in the records was shown in the names of the respondents to which the appellant filed objections. Under S. 9-A of the CONSOLIDATION Act the CONSOLIDATION Officer by judgment dated July 12, 1972 upheld the objections of the appellant and names of the respondents were removed from the records and name of the appellant was entered as 'Sirdar.' Respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Settlement Officer (CONSOLIDATION), who dismissed the same by order dated 27/09/1992. The matter was yet further taken in revision by the respondents and by order dated 12/04/1973 Deputy Director, CONSOLIDATION dismissed the revision. Respondents thereafter filed writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court which by impugned judgment dated 2/12/1980 quashed the orders of all the three authorities. The result was that disputed land stood in the names of the respondents in the revenue records under the CONSOLIDATION Act.

(3.) IN 1959 Shivrati filed a suit for partition under S. 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short 'Zamindari Abolition Act'). The case set up by the appellant that Shivrati was not his brother was negatived and on 24/02/1961 final decree was passed for partition in favour of Shivrati. An appeal against the judgment and decree thus passed was taken by the appellant but that was dismissed by judgment dated 17/07/1961. The decree for partition became final. It is, however, admitted case of the parties that this decree was never executed and that appellant always remained in possession of the land since the death of his father which, as stated above, was some time in 1945.