SUGHAR DULAIYA Vs. D D C & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prabhakar Singh, for the petitioner and Sri Anuj Kumar, for the respondents.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Consolidation Officer (respondent-3) dated 02.01.1976 passed in Case No. 4988, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 10.03.1976, passed in Appeal Nos. 137 and 172 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 07.06.1978, passed in Revision Nos. 34 and 774, in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) The dispute relates to khata Nos. 196 and 197 of village Pahari Buzurg, pargana Moth, district Jhansi. In basic consolidation year, khata 196 was recorded in the names of Sughar Dulaiya widow of Saru and Jhagroo, Bharosa and Diluwa (respondents-5, 6 and 7) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) and khata 197 was exclusively recorded in the names of Sughar Dulaiya widow of Saru. Village was notified under Section 9 of the Act, on 15.05.1975. Pradhan of the village filed a time barred objection on 25.09.1975, for deleting the name of Sughar Dulaiya from the land in dispute and recording it in the name of Gaon Sabha, stating therein that Sughar Dulaiya was not heard for last 25 to 30 years. Another objection was filed by Mantoo and Goti Ram on the same day for deleting the name of Sughar Dulaiya from the land in dispute and recording their names, claiming that Saru and Sughar Dulaiya died issueless and they were the nearest heirs of Saru. Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the objections to Consolidation Officer with report 20.10.1975 that both the objections were time barred. The objections were registered as Case No. 4988 under Section 9-A of the Act, before the Consolidation Officer. On the notice, the petitioner contested the objection, claiming that she was alive. She became widow about 30 years ago and thereafter she remarried to Ghasi. She had been continuously in possession of the land in dispute since before the date of vesting. She paid rent to Zamindar and after date of vesting she had been regularly paying land revenue and cultivating the land. She had also obtained bhumidhari certificate of the land in dispute. Her name was through out recorded in the revenue record and her possession was also recorded in khasra. Gotiram, Panche, Chhotelal and Mantu beat her for which she had filed FIR in which charge sheet was submitted against these persons. Pradhan was protecting these persons as such objections were mala fide filed due to enmity. The case was tried by the Consolidation Officer (respondent-3). Apart from documentary evidence produced by the parties, the petitioner examined Sughar Dulaiya, Panna Lal Pateriya and Dhansu as her witnesses. On behalf of Gaon Sabha, Gayasi Lal (Pradhan) and Ballu were examined. Mantoo examined Mantoo, Har Narain and Raksu. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 02.01.1976 held that the land in dispute belonged to Saru son of Halku, while according to the petitioner, she was widow of Saru was son of Chainu; it was not proved from the evidence of the petitioners that the in dispute was ever recorded in the name of Chainu. In the Voter List of the year 1968 and 1973, name of wife of Ghasi has been mentioned as Fundan. Mantoo and others could not prove that they were heirs of Saru. It is proved that Saru and his widow Sughar Dulaiya died issueless and land of khata 196 was inherited by Jhagroo and others (the respondents) and land of khata 197 was vested in Gaon Sabha. On these findings, objection of Gaon Sabha was partly allowed and objection of Mantoo and other was dismissed.