RAMESHWAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this petition relates to a legal battle of co-tenancy in a claim set up by the petitioners predecessor in interest, Ram Murat in relation to Khata Nos. 47, 119 and 326. THE claim has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer and on an appeal the petitioners succeeded before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. THE respondent filed a revision which was dismissed on 11.8.1972.

(2.) THERE after the matter was taken up in writ petition No. 63 of 1973 filed by the respondent before this Court. The petition was allowed on 14.2.1985 and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the matter afresh. The High Court directed that the claim of Ram Murat in relation to plot No.315 had been accepted and that of the respondent had been rejected. In such a situation it was found that no adverse inference could have been drawn in the said circumstances and the impact thereof ought to have been assessed in accordance with law. On remand by the High Court the revision was allowed on 29.11.1989 thus rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) SRI B.D.Mandhyan learned Senior Counsel contends that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had categorically discussed the evidence relating to the joint status of the family and as such the holdings in dispute were all joint holdings in which the petitioners had their share. He contends that the same could not have been treated as the exclusive tenancy of the respondent. SRI Mandhyan relying on the decisions in the case of Vasumatibin Gauri Shanker Bhatt Vs. Navi ram Manchharam Vora and others, AIR 1967 SC 405, Kailash Rai vs. Jai Jai Ram and others, reported in AIR 1973 SC 893, Badlooo & ors Versus Kandhai and others reported in 1979 AWC 83 and Dujai and ors Vs. D.D.C. Sitapur and others reported in 2004(96) RD 662 contends that the jointness can also be presumed in Sirdari Khatas and as such the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid cases. He further submits that there was no dispute in relation to Khata No. 315 in which the petitioners were the exclusive recorded tenure holders and which dispute has become final. The impact of the decision in relation to Khata No.315 has been wrongly construed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be adverse against the petitioners and therefore the impugned order is vitiated.