BHRIGURASAN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.P. Singh, Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Siddharth Nandan, Advocate, representing respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel, representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The counsel for the parties have also filed their written arguments which are part of record.

(2.) The present writ petition arises from proceedings registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). The plots in dispute in the consolidation proceedings and in the present writ petition are Plot Nos. 448/2, 381/2, 447/1 and 396/1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed plots') included in Khata Nos. 59 and 116 and situated in Village-Singaha, District-Kushinagar (previously District-Deoria). One Gaya, son of Parag, was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots. Shivraji was the widow of Gaya. Munia was the daughter of Gaya and Shivraji. Petitioners are the sons of Munia. Gaya belonged to the Lohar community. Gaya died before the date of vesting as defined in Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950'), and in the revenue records of 1359 Fasli and 1379 Fasli Shivraji was recorded as tenant of the disputed plots. After the death of Shivraji, the petitioners were recorded as tenants of the disputed plots and continued to be recorded as such in the basic year records of the village, i.e., the records available on the date the notification under Section 4(2) of the Act, 1953 was published notifying the village under consolidation operations.

(3.) During the consolidation operations, the respondent no. 3 filed objections against the entries in the basic year records claiming himself to be the sole tenant of the disputed plots. On the objections of respondent no. 3, Case no. 1016 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Consolidation Officer, Hata at Kasya, District-Deoria (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'). The case set up by respondent no. 3 was that Gaya and Shivraji had two sons, namely Thakur and Pheku, and respondent no. 3 was the son of Thakur. Thakur died before Gaya. It was the case of respondent no. 3 that Pheku had died issueless, therefore, the share of Pheku also devolved on respondent no. 3.