QABOOL SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QABOOL Singh defendant No. 3, in a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, has filed this petition praying that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue. Addi tional Commissioner Meerut, Assistant Collector Meerut dated 24th January, (contd. on col. 2) 1970, 26th November. 1968. 10th May, 1968 and 30th September, 1971 be quashed. In order to appreciate the contro versy raised in this petition it would be convenient to state a short pedigree, which is admitted by the parties con cerned. HAEDEV SINGH 1 Ram Prasad. 1 1 Pirthi. Qabul Singh = Vidyawati (widow) Defdt. No. 3 1 1 1 Surya Prakash Chander Pal (Defdt No. 4) (Defdt. 5) Viiai Kumar (Defdt. 6) Shiksha 1 Subhash Plff. No. 1 1 Bimla Plff. 2 1 Krantt Plff. 3. Plaintiffs Subhash, Simla and Kranti brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. claiming oo-bhumidhari rights in respect of khata No. 197 and co-sirdari rights in Khata No. 355. It was claimed that the two plots were the holdings of Prithi Singh who died before the enforcement of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. On his death, his widow Smt. Vidyawati inherited these plots and became bhumidhar of Khata No. 197 and sirdar of Khata No. 355. During the consolidation operations, three different chaks were prepared. One Chak was allotted to Smt. Vidya-wati. Qabool Singh, the petitioner got another Chak whereas defendants Nos. 4 to 6 were allotted the third chak. Smt. Vidyawati died about six years back, leaving behind three daughters namely, Smt. Bimla, Smt. Kranti and Smt. Shiksha (mother of plaintiff No. 1). After the death of Smt. Vidyawati a litigation, in connection with the mutation of names in her place, took place between the three plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 3 to 6. in which the parties compromised and entered into a family settlement. Infor mation about this was given to fhe con solidation authorities, by moving an ap plication dated April 22. 1960. The Con solidation Authorities, thereupon, made orders in accordance with the family settlement. According to that settlement plaintiff's share came to 5 Bighas 2 Biswas and 10 Biswansis in area. Neces sary entries in accordance with the fami ly settlement were made in the revenue papers but due to oversight the family settlement was not given effect to in C. H. Form Nos. 41 and 45. However, the plaintiffs claimed that they had been in possession over the plots as per fami ly settlement which is binding on the parties. After the death of Smt. Shiksha, mother of plaintiff No. 1. pro ceedings for mutation of names in her place were again taken. Defendants 3 to 6 contested the same and plaintiff's name was not brought on the record. Accordingly the present suit was filed claiming a declaration about plaintiffs' bhumidhari and sirdari rights.

(2.) THE suit was contested by Qabool Singh, defendant No. 3. But de fendant No. 4 filed a written statement admitting the plaintiff's case. Qabool Singh claimed that on the death of Smt Vidyawati he alone succeeded to her in terest under Section 172 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and that he had been in exclusive possession over the plot in dis pute. The plaintiffs in collusion with de fendants Nos. 4 to 6 tried to get the name of Smt. Vidyawati recorded in revenue papers. He denied that any family settlement ever took place between the parties. If there was any such settle ment, he was not bound by it.

(3.) , The Board of Revenue came to conclusion that on the death of Smt. Vidyawati, succession to her interest was governed by Section 172 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act as claimed by defend ants. Although there is some confu sion in the order of the Board of Re venue, the position has been made clear as per order dated 24th November, 1970 passed on the review application. It, however, held that both the Courts be low concurrently found that the plain tiffs were in possession over their share in view of the family arrangement and as such they were entitled to retain that possession and to claim a declaration under Section. 229-B of the U. P_ Z. A. and L. R. Act.