LALJI Vs. DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as was done by the authorities below also. The facts of the case are interwoven and interlinked. Fortunately, there appears to be no dispute on fundamental facts of the case. THESE petitions arise out of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The admitted facts of the case are being noticed with reference to the writ petition No. 11924 of 1986 which are as follows : 1. In the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Havaldar, the respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, who on 20th of August, 1952 had mortgaged the three disputed plots numbered as 175 area 0.31, 177 area 0.11 and 374 area 0.19 (total area 0.61) in favour of Vishwanath and Raghunath sons of Janki. Vishwanath is respondent No. 4 herein and Raghunath has died and he is represented by his son Chhedi, respondent Nb. 5. There is some typographical error with regard to the third plot. Somewhere it is described as 375 area 0.19 acre and somewhere as plot No. 374 area 0.19 acre.

(2.) DURING the consolidation operation in village various persons, filed objections. It was registered as Case Nos. 837, 843, 842, 841, 840, 839 and 838. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed objections under Section 9A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act that they are in possession of land in dispute for more than 12 years and have perfected their title. A compromise was arrived at between the parties i.e. Havaldar, on one hand, and Vishwanath and Raghunath, on the other hand. It was agreed upon that Vishwanath and Raghunath sons of Janki may remain in occupation as an asami till the payment of mortgage money including interest amounting to Rs. 800/-. In pursuance of the aforesaid compromise, the Consolidation Officer passed the order dated 23rd of October, 1971 and ordered that the names of Vishwanath and Raghunath sons of Janki be recorded as mortgagee over the plot Nos. 175,177 and 375 on the share of Havaldar (mortgagor).

(3.) THE petitioners on the strength of the sale-deed in their favour filed an application under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act for mutation of their names over the plots purchased by them in place of Havaldar, giving rise to writ petition No. 11924 of 1986.