TIHULI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was heard alongwith Consolidation No. 839 of 1981 Girdhari Vs. D.D.C. & Others. On 5.8.2013 following order was passed on the order sheet :

(2.) IN the basic year when consolidation started in the area in question, Khata No.75 containing agricultural land in dispute was recorded in the name of original petitioner and Girdhari and Nagai opposite party no. 2 and 4 and some other persons. Objections were filed by Banwari S/O Ayodhya original opposite party no. 3 claiming co-tenancy. Original petitioner also filed objections claiming exclusive right over the khata in dispute. C.O. decided the matter on 20.7.1970 holding that each branch of the three sons of Gopal had one-third share against which order three appeals were filed one by petitioner, one by Girdhari and one by Nigdhi ( or Nigghi original opposite party no. 5). Appeals of petitioner and respondent no. 2 were dismissed and appeal of original opposite party no. 5 was allowed. S.O.C. gave 1/3rd share each to opposite party no. 3 and opposite party no. 4 and 1/6th share each to petitioner and opposite party no. 5 through order dated 4.2.1971. Thereafter, two revisions, Revision No. 563/1180/1008 Girdhari Vs. Tihuli and others and Revision No. 564/1179/1007 Tihuli Vs. Banwari and Others, were filed, one by the petitioner and other by Girdhari (Opposite party no. 2). Petitioner's revision was allowed by the D.D.C. through order dated 11.6.1971 and petitioner was declared to be the sole tenure holder and his name was directed to be recorded as such. Revision of Girdhari was dismissed. Against the said judgment writ petition was filed in this Court being Writ petition No. 1411 of 1971 by Girdhari. The only contesting respondent in the said writ petition was Tihuli, the original petitioner of this writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed on 2.7.1979 and D.D.C. was directed to re-consider the matter. It was noticed in the said judgment that Tihuli had made some admission regarding co-tenancy rights of Girdhari petitioner of the said writ petition. It was also noticed in the said judgment that learned counsel for Tihuli contended that the admission was obtained by mis-representation. The matter was remanded to consider as to whether admission made by Tihuli was obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, etc. or not.

(3.) IN para-9 of this writ petition, it has been stated that against judgment of D.D.C. dated 11.06.1971, two writ petitions were filed, one by Banwari and Nagai and other by Girdhari and both the writ petitions were allowed and case was remanded to the D.D.C. Relevant portion of remand order by this court dated 02.07.1979 is quoted below: