KHUNKHUN Vs. THE D.D.C. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 19.10.1973 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, Camp at Basti, respondent no.1, whereby the revision filed by the respondents has been allowed, and after setting aside the judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 20.7.1972, that of the Consolidation Officer dated 10.11.1971 has been maintained.

(2.) THE dispute in the present petition relates to Khata No.56, Village Madhwa Tappa Banjaraha, Pargana and Tahsil Naugarh, district Basti (hereinafter referred to as the Khata in dispute). The pedigree as set up by the petitioners is as follows -

(3.) IN the basic year the Khata in dispute was recorded in the name of Rama and Hansraj (respondent nos.3 & 4). Objections under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the CH Act) was filed by the petitioners, claiming co -tenancy with the respondent nos.3 & 4 in the Khata in dispute. According to the petitioners khata in dispute originally belonged to their father Jagannath who was also recorded over the same in 1324F, in the revenue records. Subsequently Rama, who was the Pradhan of the village surreptitiously got the name of Jagannath deleted and got his name and the name of Hansraj recorded over the khata in dispute. The respondents contested the objections alleging that Jagannath did not belong to the family of the respondents, the pedigree as such was denied. In 1324 F the person recorded was Jagannath son of Goli and not Jagannath son of Ganesh, who was the grand -father of Hansraj and father of Rama. It was further alleged that the Khata in dispute had been settled by the Zamindar in favour of Tekai (father of Hansraj and brother of Rama). As such it was the sole acquisition of Tekai and Jagannath had nothing to do with the same. It is further alleged that Jagannath and thereafter Dulare were alive at the time settlement was made but they never objected to the settlement made in favour of Tekai nor did they ever claimed any right or interest over the Khata in dispute.