BALRAJ Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners disputing the pedigree set up by the contesting respondent contend that the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are not in accordance with law and that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside declaring the shares of the petitioners as claimed by them.

(2.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act where the claim of shares was agitated by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer. In the first round of litigation the matter travelled up to the High Court by means of a Writ Petition No. 6260 of 1975. The writ petition was allowed partly to the extent indicated therein and the operative part of the judgment whereby remand was ordered is reproduced herein below;

(3.) SRI Faujdar Rai learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the order of remand of the High Court in the year 2003 the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the order dated 25.7.1974 had recorded that Shobha the predecessor in interest of the contesting respondent had admitted that Ramphal was the son of Shiv Singh. He has invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 25.7.74 to that effect. SRI Rai submits that the said evidence was on record when the matter was remanded by the High Court in the year 2003. The same requires a consideration which has not been done. Hence the impugned orders are vitiated. In short his submission is that a relevant piece of evidence having been ignored the impugned orders are vitiated as the said admission directly reflects on the issue that had to be decided. He further submits that admission is the best piece of evidence and the same could not have been ignored by the Consolidation Officer.