LAXMI NARAIN Vs. RAM ANJORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Laxmi Narain (since deceased) and now represented by his heirs, aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Authorities has approached this Court praying for quashing the same on the ground that the Petitioner is entitled to be declared as the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute and the orders of the Consolidation Authorities being erroneous, the same deserves to be set aside.

(2.) Before the Consolidation Officer, it is admitted that the plot in dispute was recorded in the name of the Petitioner. The Opposite Party Ram Anjor (Since deceased) and other Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 contested the aforesaid entry in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that the disputed plot was a grove/Sirdari of the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 claimed plot No. 140/2, 140/1 and 140/3 as their grove and Abadi.

(3.) The Petitioner contested the claim of the opposite parties by filing evidence of possession in the shape of revenue records as evidence of title from prior to abolition of Zamindari to contend that it was the grove of the Petitioner and was a proprietary grove of his ancestors, therefore, the claim of the Respondents was erroneous.