LAXMAN Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Krishna Ji Khare holding brief of Sri K.S. Kushwaha learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh holding brief of Sri R.K. Verma for the private respondents as also learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. This writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 29.01.1975 passed by the respondent no. 1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia as also the order dated 20.10.1970 passed by the respondent no. 2 Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia. Sri Krishna Ji Khare has submitted that the dispute before the Consolidation Officer was relating to the Khatas no. 13, 110, 111, 183 which all were recorded in the basic year in the name of the ancestors of the parties.

(2.) ACCORDING to him all the said khatas are coming down from the common ancestors of the respondents as also the petitioners. He states that the Consolidation Officer by his order as contained in annexure 2 to the writ petition had considered the objections of the parties and insofar as plot no. 97/2 area 0.55 decimal in Khata no. 13 is concerned he directed that it should be recorded in the name of Laxman the petitioner who has also obtained bhoomidari sanad of the said plot.

(3.) HAVING considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and' perused the record insofar as the claim of the petitioner for exclusive bhoomidhari rights over an area .55 decimal in plot no. 97/2 is concerned the plot had total area of 1.04 acres. Objection was filed by the petitioner Laxman before the Consolidation Officer claiming exclusive rights over his share of the plot in view of the fact that he has obtained bhoomidhari sanad on 17.11.1949. His case was that the respondents had sold their shares to outsider in plot no. 97/2 therefore the entry of their names in the basic year required to be expunged and that of the petitioner recorded. The Consolidation Officer considered the fact that although the respondents had filed objection to this plea of the petitioner but they subsequently withdrew their objection. The result was that the plea of the petitioner Laxman for' expunging the name of the respondents from the basic year record only with respect to an area of .55 decimal over plot no. 97/2 went un-contested. When there is no contest made by the respondents to the claim of the petitioner over this plot there was no occasion for the petitioner to led any evidence primarily for the reason that an issue is made only when there is a claim and a denial by the parties. When there is such a dispute then evidence is required to be led by the parties to prove their case.