LAWS(ALL)-1992-9-96

BABURAM Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

Decided On September 02, 1992
BABURAM Appellant
V/S
Ist Additional District Judge Meerut Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders of I Civil Judge, Meerut dated 21-8-1981 as well as the orders of 1 Addl. District Judge, Meerut dated 15-2-1982 are prayed to be quashed in this writ petition. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are as under.

(2.) By virtue of the notification dated 16-3-1955 under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Settlement Officer was appointed to carry out the scheme of consolidation. The dispute between the parties related to Khatas No. 447 of village Tehariki, Pergana and Tahsil Sardhana, district Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'the concerned village'). According to the Petitioners some persons were recorded in the respective Khatas prior to 1954 whose names are given in para 2 of the writ petition. These Khatas were put together and given a new number as Khata No 44. The names of both the litigating parties were recorded over the aforesaid Khata. The consolidation officer is said to have proceeded to carve out Chaks in the concerned village without declaring the share of the tenure holders and without making partition. This gave rise to filing of a writ petition by the Villagers in the year 1956. The High Court is said to have directed the Consolidation authorities to first determine the share of the parties and partition the holding before proceeding to prepare the consolidation scheme and carvation of chak.

(3.) On 20-2-1963 the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest is said to have filed objection under Section 9 of the Act. He is said to have divided the land in two schedules. Part of the land was claimimed by him to be ancestral property of the Petitioners and the petitioners' ancestor was said to be the exclusive tenure holder of the said land. Part of the land is said to hate been acquired by the parties through sale deeds and the ancestor of the opposite parties was coopted as co tenure holder to the extent of one-fifth Share. The Consolidation Officer is said to have decided the objection on 7-4-1993. He declared the share of the Petitioners as 3/4th and the remaining l/4th was declared as share of the opposite parties in all the three Khatas. On appeal, the order of the Consolidation to 2/3 while the share of the opposite parties was declared as 1/3 in all the three Khatas. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is said to have allowed the revision against this order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and has remanded the case back to the Settlement Officer consolidation vide its order dated 5-10-1963. The Settlement Officer Consolidation is said to have decided the case afresh on 22-11-1963. The petitioners' share was declared by him as 3/4 and that of the opposite parties as 1/4. The revision filed by the opposite parties against the said order was dismissed on 9-1-1964.