RAMA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition arises out of proceedings under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-8-1989 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi (Annexure 3 to the writ petition).

(2.) THE dispute before the Consolidation authorities between the parties, was in respect of plots comprising basic Khatauni Khata Nos. 783 and 540 of village Harshosh Post Harshosh in the district of Varanasi. Khata No. 783 was exclusively recorded in the names of the petitioners whereas Khata No. 540 was recorded in the names of petitioners together-with Jagan, Ghure and Mithai-respondents 2, 3 and 4. On publication of statement of principles, three sets of objections were filed-one by Chhedi and others (respondents 6 to 9) in respect of certain plots on the basis of a sale deed executed by Shanker, petitioner no. 3, who was one of the recorded tenure holders. THE second set of objection came from Bhaggu claiming himself to be co-tenure-holder in both the Khatas on the ground that he was the son of Moti who was admittedly one of the co-tenure holders In the Khatas in dispute. THE third set of objection was filed by lagan and Maggan claiming themselves to be co-tenure holders in Khata no. 783 alongwith recorded ones. Alternatively, they claimed to be the sole tenure holders of plots bearing Khasra Nos. 511, 529, 1623/1 by adverse possession under section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment In so fax as it upholds the claim of transferees from petitioner no. 3 does not suffer from an error of law much-less an error of law manifest on record warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Revisional Court has come to the conclusion that the transfers pertain to the share of the transferor and that being so, it has rightly held that the transfers in question were made well in accordance with the permission for transfer given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioners have failed to prove that the transfers in question were vitiated an any other ground, My attention could not be invited to any material on record on the basis of which it could be said that the Consolidation authorities could treat the sale deeds as void and Ignore the same without insisting upon their formal cancellation by the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the writ petition as against the transferee is dismissed and the impugned judgment In so far as It is In favour of the transferees is maintained. The rest of the judgment under question is, however, not sustainable in law. A perusal of the Civil Courts judgment dated 19 9-1973 rendered in original suit no. 558 of 1968, in which Bhaggu was party defendant no. 8, indicates that he (Bhaggu) failed to prove himself to be the son of Moti on the proof of which was based his claim of co-tenancy in suit land namely Plot No. 1623 which is one of the plots in dispute in this writ petition as well. Since Bhaggu's claim of co-tenure holderthip In the disputed Khatas is based on his claim of being the son of Moti, the Civil Court's judgment on this score would operate as res-judicata and the Asstt/Dy. Director of Consolidation has patently erred in holding otherwise The finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation that Bhaggu was not the son of Moti, stood concluded and was not liable to be reopened in view of the judgment of the Civil Court and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in Interfering with the concurrent finding recorded by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation and in reopening an issue which was no longer res-integra. Therefore, the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in so far as it upholds the claim of Bhaggu, is also, liable to be quashed.