BABU LAL Vs. SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.9.1978 (Annexure-7) passed by opposite party No. 2 and order dated 4.8.1982 (Annexure-9) passed by opposite party No. 3.

(2.) The dispute relates to the land of khata No. 76 having several plots, measuring about 23 bighas and few biswas, which was earlier recorded in the name of Sunder (opposite party No. 1) in the basic year. There commenced consolidation operation in the area. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (sons of Jagannath) put a claim, saying that since the property was ancestral and was acquired by Hindu joint family and since the name of Sunder was recorded in representative capacity, therefore, they had a share therein. Descendants of Pancham, brother of Jagannath, though filed no objection as such but did file written statement, claiming their share in that holding. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter, vide order dated 14.1.1975 giving 1/3 share to Sunder, 1/3 to descendants of Pancham and 1/3 to petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, descendants of Jagannath, brother of Pancham. Bhola, who was not an objector before the Consolidation Officer, preferred an appeal and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation remanded the matter for decision afresh. The Consolidation Officer considered the matter again, but reaffirmed his earlier order, vide order dated 24.6.1976 (Annexure-6). It may be mentioned that Bhola, who had filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, appeared as a witness after remand, to support the case of Sunder. Against this subsequent order dated 24.6.1976 of the Consolidation Officer, Opposite Party No. 1 Sunder filed an appeal. The appellate authority confirmed the finding of Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 21.9.1978, but gave 2/3 share to Sunder and 1/3 to petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(3.) Aggrieved of it, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Pancham and Sunder filed separate revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. During the pendency of these revisions, descendants of Pancham filed a belated objection under Section 9A, which the Consolidation Officer decided, vide order dated 31.7.1980 (Annexure-A8). That order was also filed before the revising authority at the time those revisions were heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision of Sunder holding that the property in question was not ancestral as claimed by descendants of Jagannath or Pancham, but was self acquired property of Sunder. Consequently, revisions filed by petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and by descendants of Pancham were dismissed. Aggrieved of this order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.1.1982, descendants of Jagannath and Pancham have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.