KRISHNA DUTT PANDEY Vs. JT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.07.1982 passed in Case No.3563 by the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 26.07.1989 passed in Revision No.1402/942 by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, by means of which the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Musafirkhana, District-Sultanpur in Appeal No.234 has been set aside and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been upheld.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, for adjudication of the present writ petition, are that the dispute pertains to Plot No.366, which was recorded in the name of the petitioners as bhumidhars in the basic year. On publication of record under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953), the opposite party nos. 3 to 8 filed objections claiming that the parties hailed from common ancestor and the land in dispute is old grove and the names of the opposite parties have been omitted to be recorded, as such, their names should also be recorded alongwith the petitioners. The claim of the opposite parties was refuted by the petitioners and according to them, the pedigree shown by the opposite parties before the Consolidation Officer was incomplete, the family is not joint family, the parties have their separate holdings and separate groves. It was further alleged that no party has any concern with the land of the others and the zamindar had executed patta on 14.04.1950 in favour of the petitioners and at no point of time, neither the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the common ancestor nor the opposite parties were in possession over the land in dispute. The dispute was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer and the parties tendered their evidence. After evidence, the Consolidation Officer, placing reliance on a partition deed dated 04.05.1948 allowed the objection filed by the opposite parties by means of the order dated 13.07.1982. The petitioners had challenged the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in appeal under Section 11(1) of Act of 1953, which came up before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by means of the order dated 10.05.1985 allowed the appeal in favour of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the opposite party nos. 3 to 8 had filed a revision under Section 48 of Act of 1953 which came up before the Joint Director of Consolidation, who by means of the order dated 26.07.1989 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and maintained the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.