CHANDRABALI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in relation to the title over the land in dispute between the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 late Vashishth Narain and the objectors namely Narvada Prasad the father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and one Tribhuwan Nath his brother.

(2.) THE objections were preferred in the year 1984 on a clear allegation that Vashishth Narain belongs to a separate pedigree altogether and not to the pedigree of the objectors now represented through the contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 6. THE pedigree which was relied upon by the respondents in their objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is contained therein and has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. THE case set-up by them was that land of Khata No. 367 was the exclusive tenancy of the objectors and the details of the plots were mentioned in paragraph 1 of the objection. In Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the objection it has been asserted that plot No. 742 jointly stood in the name of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners and the predecessors in interest of the respondents, and they were equal shareholders therein. THE objection further narrates that since the objectors Tribhuwan Nath and Narvada Prasad were minors, therefore, they were represented through their guardian Lallan who manipulated the entries in his favour. It was further contended that the name of Vashishth Narain against the said disputed Khata which has been entered is "farji'. Certain other objections relating to shortage of area in other plots were also mentioned. This objections were allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 27.7.2009 recording a finding to the effect that the name of the petitioner-opposite party which had been entered on the basis of an order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 4.7.1962 appears to be doubtful and he further recorded that according to the pedigree set up by the objectors the land in dispute came to be recorded entirely in the name of Mata Palat the predecessor in interest of respondents objectors since 1282 Fasli which corresponds to 1844 AD.

(3.) SRI Anil Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the objection admits the guardianship of Lallan and that could not have been possible, unless the parties belonged to the same family and were governed by the same pedigree. In this view of the matter the findings recorded being contradictory, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error by reversing the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He therefore contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He has also filed written submissions.