PHOOL KUNWAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION JALAUN CAMP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India the prayer is that the order dated 22-7-89 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 of the consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), the order dated 18-12-84 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order dated 30-3-81 passed by the Consolidation Officer may be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and they are these. One Bhujbal was the Sir and Khudkasht holder. He gifted his Sir and Khudkasht land contained in the plots in dispute (khata nos. 394 and 105) in village Adta, Pargana Garotha, district Jhansi in favour of Smt. Mahrani. In the basic year the petitioner Pholl Kunwar and respondent no. 4 Nanoo Singh were recorded as co-bhumidhars to the extent of 1/2 share. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act was filed by the petitioner claiming the sole bhumidari rights on the averment that one Bhujbal was the Sir and Khudkasht holder who executed the gift deed in favour of Smt. Maharani, his daughter-in-law before the date of vesting. Smt. Maharani died in 1943 before the date of vesting and after her death the petitioner as her daughter and Smt. Lalla Beti, another daughter of Smt. Maharani, sister of the petitioner, inherited the interest of Smt. Maharani as his daughter and after the death of Lalla Beti on 30-11-52 after the date of vesting, her interest was inherited by her son Veer Singh and after his death the same was inherited by his son Haiku Singh and thereafter by his son Nanoo Singh, respondent no. 4. THE petitioner's case was that after the death of Lalla Beti her interest would devolve on her sister Smt. Phool Kunwar, the petitioner and would not be inherited by her son (son Lalla Beti). As Smt. Lalla Beti was the limited owner and consequently the name of respondent no. 4 may be expunged and that of the petitioner may be recorded as sole bhumidar. It was also urged that there was a suit for partition which was pending between the parties, but the same was abated on account of notification under section 4 of the Act.

(3.) SRI N. B. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Smt. Lalla Beti was the limited owner and after her death her interest would devolve on her sister, the petitioner and thereafter the same would not be inherited by Smt. Lalla Beti's son Veer Singh and thereafter by his son Haiku and thereafter by his son Nanoo Singh, the respondent no. 4. As Smt. Lalla Beti inherited the interest before the date of vesting, after her death succession would be governed by Section 172 and not by Section 174 of the U.P. ZA and LR Act as Smt. Lalla Beti was not the full fledged owner nor a bhumidar in her own rights.