UMA Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar for the petitioner. List has been revised but no one appears for respondents.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia (respondent-1) dated 27.08.1999, passed in Revision Nos. 1627 and 1628, Uma Vs. Patia and others and order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia (respondent-2) dated 22.04.1997, passed in Appeal No. 406, Ganesh Vs. Patia and Appeal No. 407, Patia Vs. Ganesh, in the title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act").

(3.) The dispute relates to plot No.1961 (area 0.59 acre) situated at village Sahulai, pargana Sikandarpur Purbi, district Ballia. In basic consolidation year, khata 701 (consisting of plot Nos. 1961 (area 0.59 acre), 1962 (area 0.30 acre), 1963 (area 0.18 acre0, 1964/1 (area 0.20 acre), 1965/1 (area 0.21 acre), 1971 (area 0.36 acre), 1972 (area 0.34 acre) and 1973 (area 0.35 acre) (total area 2.54 acre) was recorded in the names of Patia (respondent-4) and Jankia (respondent-5) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). Ganesh (the father of the petitioner) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 370 of 1984) under Section 9 A of the Act, claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the khata in dispute. However in his oral statement, Ganesh confined his claim in respect of entire area of 0.59 acre of plot No. 1961 and abandoned his claim of co-tenancy in respect of entire plots of khata 701. Ganesh, in his statement gave a pedigree, in which he had stated that one Bhuwal was the common ancestor of the parties who had four sons namely Feku, Harhangi, Naurangi and Shiv Saran. Harhangi and Shiv Saran died issueless. Ganesh was son of Naurangi and Patia widow of Bhukhan was grand daughter-in-law of Feku and Jankia is the daughter of Bhukhan. Plot No. 1961 was the self acquired property of Naurangi and Shiv Saran. Feku died during life time of his other brothers. The respondents have no right over plot 1961. On behalf of the respondents, Patia was examined and she in her statement has stated that the land in dispute was the self acquired property of her husband Bhukhan and his brothers Amar and Ganesh have no right over it.