MAHADEO Vs. J D C & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is directed against the order dated 11.01.1977 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Koraon, District Allahabad in Case No.7448/7694 under Section 9 of the said Act as also the order dated 02.08.1977 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meja, District Allahabad in Appeal No.703 and the order dated 13.01.1978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.813 of 149.

(2.) According to Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispute before the Consolidation Officer related to Gata No.61 of Khata No.37 and Gata No.432 of Khata No.119 situate in village Chandpur Tappa Barokhar Pargana Kheragarh, District Allahabad. He submits that the objection filed by the contesting respondents related only to the said gatas but the Consolidation Officer has decided the dispute of Khata No.37 which consists of 16 plots as well as of Khata No.119. He states that such order of the Consolidation Officer is clearly without jurisdiction since there was no objection by the contesting respondents with respect to the other gatas under the said Khata's and hence the impugned orders of the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision is without jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioners in the basic year and, therefore, the Consolidation Authorities when they recorded that it was the acquisition of common ancestor they ought to have recorded a categorical finding regarding unbroken identity of the holding before declaring the contesting respondent as co-tenure holder. According to him when the plots of Khata No.37 and Khata No.119 were recorded in the name of the petitioners the finding that no partition had taken place is not based on any evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting respondent Sri Durga Singh has submitted that the land in question was acquired by the common ancestor Shiv Pal and was recorded in the name of the petitioners but during partal the Consolidation Authorities found that the contesting respondents were in possession of certain plots which were recorded in the name of the petitioners hence such dispute regarding plots in question was recorded in C.H. Form No.4 and was registered as a dispute in C.H. Form No.5 which was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, Koraon. Upon such reference the petitioner filed his written statement claiming co-tenancy rights over the land in dispute. He states that the Consolidation Officer clearly framed two issues. Firstly, whether the contesting respondents are co-tenure holders with the petitioner over Khata No.37 and Khata No.119 and whether the petitioner and the contesting respondent belong to the same family coming from the common ancestor.