RAM ROOP Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.1.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the dispute relates to Khata No. 169 of village Bhatpurwa Khurd, district Varanasi, for short, the land in dispute. In the basic year, both parties, i.e., the petitioners and Smt. Daulati, widow of Bechan, were recorded over the land in dispute. On the receipt of Form No. 5, issued by the consolidation authorities, the petitioners filed their objections claiming that the land in dispute belonged to them exclusively and that the name of Smt. Daulati was liable to be expunged from revenue papers. It was pleaded that the land in dispute was originally owned by Smt. Mangari, widow of Chauthi, that Smt. Mangarl had two sons, Jokhan and Bechan. who died during the life time of Smt. Mangari, that the name of Smt. Daulati, wife of Bechan, who was alive, was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers and that the petitioners were in adverse possession of the land in dispute. It was also pleaded that Smt. Daulati entered Into an agreement to sell the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners after acquiring bhumidhari rights. She also received from them sufficient sale consideration, but subsequently acting illegally executed baksheeshnama in favour of Smt. Maharani and Smt. Sona but the petitioner continued in possession of the land in dispute. Therefore, It was prayed that the names of contesting respondents be expunged from the revenue papers. The objection filed by the petitioners was contested by the respondents who have denied the case set up by the petitioners and claimed that they were entitled to 1/2 share in the land in dispute. The petitioners thereafter also filed an application for amendment of their objections, mainly, pleading that Smt. Daulati illegally surrendered some land in favour of the Zamindar and also executed a document to that effect. The petitioners thereafter got executed a sale deed from the Zamlndar and became exclusive owners of the land in dispute. Other consequential amendments in the objections were also sought. The amendment application was objected to and opposed by Smt. Daulati. However, the same was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by judgment and order dated 30.6.1976. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the contesting respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and allowed the revision by his Judgment and order dated 10.1.1977. Hence, the present petition.