CHUNNOO Vs. A.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. The order dated 22.07.1987 passed in Revision no. 2705 of 1975 (Sitaram Vs Chunnoo) by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hamirpur has been assailed. The dispute relates to Khata no. 236 situate in Village Bidhokhar-Purai, Pargana Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. The basic year khatauni recorded the name of Devideen (father of respondent nos. 2 and 3) over the khata. The petitioner filed objection before the Consolidation Officer which was contested by Devideen however Devideen died and his two sons were substituted and they filed the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) AFFIDAVITS have been exchanged between the parties and an interim order dated 15.12.1987 is operating in this writ petition. Learned counsels have also filed their written arguments apart from making their oral submissions. Heard Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.R. Kushwaha learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1. The petitioner Chunnoo had filed objection claiming to be co-tenure holder in Khata no. 236 with Devideen. He claimed to be son of Mataiya who had acquired the land and stated that Devideen had 1/8 share. Devideen denied that Chunnoo was son of Mataiya hence he had no share in the khata. The Consolidation Officer framed two issues i.e. whether Chunnoo is co-tenure holder in Khata no. 236 and whether Devideen is the sole owner in possession of the khata.

(3.) ON the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties the Consolidation Officer held that when the Birth Register dated 17.10.1946 showed that a son was born to Mataiya then on the date of recording of oral evidence in the case before him 29 years had passed and Chunnoo had stated his age as 30 years approximately. On the other hand Devideen in his oral statement stated his age to be 40 years therefore on 17.10.1946 the child born to Mataiya could not be Devideen but it had to be Chunnoo. He further held that the Kutumb Register filed by Devideen had been filed in Case no. 14 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and it had several cuttings and over writing in it and further that it was not proved by Devideen before him. The Consolidation Officer held that Devideen did not file any other evidence nor any person of the village came to give evidence in his support.