TRIBHUWAN NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are directed against a common judgment and order dated 27th March, 1980 and, therefore, these are taken together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 1687 of 1980 relates to land of Khata No. 57, which is Bhumidhari Khata recorded in the name of the petitioner in the basic year Khatauni, whereas writ petition No. 927 of 1980 relates to land of Khata No. 246, which is Sirdari holding and is recorded in the basic year Khatauni in petitioner's name. In respect of both these holdings an objection was filed by Subedar, the opposite-party No. 2 in WRIT Petition No. 927 of 1980. Subedar has filed writ petition No. 1687 of 1980 in respect of Khata No. 246. Subedar had claimed co-tenancy rights in both the holdings alleging the land in dispute as ancestral holding coming down from the common ancestor Paltan son of Parauti. He claimed one-half share in the holdings in dispute asserting that after death of Paltan, name of Ram Prasad was recorded in the representative capacity over the land in dispute as Karta of the family and subsequently after death of Ram Prasad the names of the petitioners came to be recorded in the representative capacity. Subedar claimed one-half share in the land in dispute and claimed to be in possession over the land in dispute.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order Subedar filed appeal. This appeal was confined only in respect of Khata No. 57. Appeal was not pressed in respect of Khata No. 246, which is Sirdari holding. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 3-10-78 dismissed the appeal filed by Subedar holding that the land in dispute was acquired by Ram Prasad. He considered in detail the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that Subedar had no share in the land in dispute ; nor he had ever been in possession of the same. The land rent receipts filed by Subedar were not accepted to be receipts in respect of land in dispute. It has been observed that the land rent receipts are of the year 1969 and, therefore, these cannot be taken to be rent receipts in respect of the holding in dispute because after abolition of zamindari rent could not be paid to the Zamindar in respect of the land in dispute. The findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer were affirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He has further recorded a finding to the effect that Paltan had died sometimes in the year 1335 Fasli, i. e., 1928, whereas the entry in the name of Ram Prasad son of Paltan is coming down from the year 1328 Fasli. He has further found that there was a difference of ten biswansis in the area and, therefore, there is a difference in rent, which was initially recorded of the land holding in the name of Paltan in the year 1314 Fasli. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on these findings dismissed the appeal.