BANSU Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Arun Kumar holding brief of Sri R.S. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and Sri K.P.S. Yadav learned counsel for respondent no. 6. I have also perused the pleadings exchanged by the parties. Whether the suit in question under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and Rs.R Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act') is barred by Sec. 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short Consolidation Act) is the short question which arises for determination in the present writ petition.

(2.) The land in dispute khata no. 90 gata no. 2 area 3-131 and 256 area 0-304 situate in village Mukhali, Tappa Pawai, Pargana Mahul, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Azamgarh was the property of one Shiv Nandan who died on 12.1.1973 leaving behind two sons Bansu (petitioner) and Hari Lal who also expired on 8.7.1974 leaving his widow Smt. Beli (respondent no. 6). Smt. Beli instituted suit no. 54 of 1979 under Sec. 229-B of the Act for declaring her that she is also the co-owner of the aforesaid land along with petitioner Bansu and is in joint possession thereof. Her allegation was that after the death of Shiv Nandan the land devolved equally upon his two sons and on the death of one of them Hari Lal his share exclusively devolved upon her but petitioner Bansu illegally got his name recorded against the entire land of which she acquired knowledge on 12.3.1979 and therefore the suit. The suit was opposed by petitioner Bansu on the ground inter alia that suit is barred by Sec. 49 of the Act. He contended that during the consolidation operations in proceedings registered as Case No. 804 under Sec. 12 of the said Act an order was passed on 2.2.1976 in his favour and the land was exclusively recorded in his name on 12.9.1977. Respondent no. 6 had not raised any objection before the consolidation authorities, therefore she is not entitle to maintain the present suit.

(3.) The suit was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.8.1982 after holding it to be maintainable and not barred by Sec. 49 of the Consolidation Act. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner on 27.5.1996 and the Second Appeal by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.1.2009. Thus all the said 3 orders of the Courts below have been assailed by him in the present writ petition.