SHRI RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Bench has been constituted by order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 03/8/2009 to answer the following five questions as framed by referring order dated 21/7/2009, by the learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition:

(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition necessary to be noted for answering the questions referred are; The Village Dinwapur, Mazare-Danda Amauli, Pargana-Tappajar, Tehsil-Bindki, District-Fatehpur was notified by the State Government for consolidation operation under the Uttar Padesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,1953). The Respondent No. 3, and one Banshi filed an objection under Section 9(A) (2) of Act, 1953 with regard to Khata No. 264 and 266 claiming that the land of the aforesaid Khatas is an ancestral acquisition acquired by common ancestor Bhura in which they are co-tenants to the extent of half share. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the Respondent No. 3, against which an appeal No. 4646 of 1998, was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, by the Respondent No. 3. The appeal of the Respondent No. 3 was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26/8/2002. Both the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation took the view that the claim of the Respondent No. 3 is barred by Section 49 of the Act, 1953, since the claim of co-tenancy was not raised during the earlier consolidation proceedings. The Respondent No. 3, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the judgment and order dated 26/8/2002. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide judgment and order dated 16/2/2006, allowed the revision and declared the Respondent No. 3, co-tenant to the extent of half of the share. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16/2/2006.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in support of the contentions raised had relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in Jagdeo and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & Ors.,2006 101 RevDec 216, to urge that the claim of the Respondent No. 3, was barred by Section 49 of the Act, 1953.