MOHD. CHAND KHAN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of hearing no -one appeared for the contesting respondents even though the case ws taken up in the revised list. Accordingly, only the arguments of Shri Param Shankar, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Naseerullah, learned counsel for the petitioners were heard.

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings. Matter pertains to title dispute in respect of plot no. 460 area 12 Biswa. In the basic year when consolidation started in the area in question, the plot in dispute was entered as Sirdari land of Smt Moona, wife of late Jhuri, original respondent no.3, Shri Ram Padarath since deceased and survived by respondent no. 4 and 5 and Shri Ram Adhar respondent no. 6. In preliminary inspection it was reported that Mohd. Shafiq, father of the petitioners was in possession. Both the parties filed objections. Mohd. Shafiq claimed his right and Smt Moona claimed her exclusive right. In Khasra of 1356 fasli Mohd. Shafiq was shown to be in occupation for four years and Ram Bux was shown tenure -holder (Ram Bux died long before start of the consolidation and no -one claimed any right over the land in dispute through him). Name of Mohd. Shafiq was also recorded in subsequent khasras. In the khasras since 1360 fasli name of Mohd Shafiq was entered under column 9, occupant without consent of the tenure -holder.

(3.) IT is mentioned in the order of S.O.C. That after 1359 fasli, the name of Mohd. Shafiq was shown as class 9 occupant in the khasra for the first time in 1368 fasli which was not in accordance with the land record manual. Strangely enough learned S.O.C. did not discuss the right of Smt. Moona and others and how their names came to be entered in the revenue record in 1360 Fasli and subsequently.