LAL CHAND Vs. D D C VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who were recorded in the basic year as the tenure-holders of the land in dispute have filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31st December 2010 as also the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10th July, 2009 condoning the delay in filing the objections on the ground that the objection filed by the respondent no. 3 - Suryabali was heavily time barred and there being no occasion for condoning the delay, the Consolidation Officer erroneously passed the order dated 10th July, 2009 and accordingly the revisional order also suffers from the same error, hence, they deserve to be set aside.

(2.) THE facts that have been given rise to the controversy appear to be that according to the admitted pedigree Ram Awatar had three sons, Kharpattu, Ram Jiyawan and Lurkhur. The respondent no. 3 Suryabali is the son of Ram Jiyawan. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are the grand sons of Kharpattu and the respondent no. 7 Smt. Murti Devi is the widow of late Kanhaiya another grand son of Kharpattu.

(3.) THE respondent no. 3 relying on certain documents in relation to his identity as being the son of Ram Jiyawan including the extract of family register, voters list as also other documents, including the death certificate of Lurkhur and Ram Jiyawan, prayed for condonation of the delay. The Consolidation Officer after examining the Khatauni of 1363 to 1365 fasli corresponding year 1970-71 found that the name of Kharpattu, Ram Jiyawan and Lurkhur had been entered against Khata No. 183. The petitioners had contested it on the basis of Khatauni of 1360 fasli which indicates their name against Khata No. 282. They also set up a claim that the property was not ancestral and had not been acquired by Ram Awatar.