BHAGWATI Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. The dispute in the instant petition which has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 12- 5-1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision No. 3537, revolves round land comprising in plot No. 420 admeasuring 1. 19 acres situated in village Poore Jaddu Pargana Miranpur, District Sultanpur.

(2.) A bare perusal of the record would reveal that in the basic year entry, the petitioner was recorded as Bhumidhar. On publication of record, an objection came to be filed by contesting Opp. Parties claiming their rights as Bhumidhars on the premises that the property in question being their ancestral property devolved upon them as successors. On the other hand, the petitioner repudiated their claims and claimed that his name was rightly entered in the basic year and the entry should not be interfered with. The Consolidation Officer who initially dealt with the matter, rejected the objection and allowed the name of the petitioner to continue on record in the basic year entry. This led the Opp. Parties to prefer appeal in which Asstt. Settlement Officer, Consolidation came with the verdict that the names of Opp. Parties be recorded as Sirdar while directing to expunge the name of the petitioner from the basic year entry. In revision, the revisional Court allowed the revision and modulated the order to the extent that petitioner's name be recorded as Asami while the names of Opp. parties be recorded as Sirdar. It is in the above backdrop that the present petition came to be filed in the year 1975.

(3.) A perusal of the record particularly para 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit leaves no manner of doubt that the property in question was acquired by Ratipal, Mahabir and Bhagwandin through registered will dated 25-6-1903. It would further transpire that Bhagwandin and Mahabir breathed their last during the life-time of Ratipal and Ram Samujh (son of Mahabir) and as a consequence Ratipal and Ram Samujh came to be recorded as co-tenure-holder in the year 1356 Fasli. From a perusal of Annexure S. C. A. 1 to the Suppl. counter affidavit, it would appear that petitioner happens to be the son of daughter of Ratipal. It has not been disputed in paragraph 4 of the Suppl. counter affidavit that Ram Samujh died during the life-time of Ratipal. It has not been repudiated that Bhagwati is the son of daughter of Ratipal which fact is borne out not only from Annexure SCA 7 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by contesting Opp. Parties but also from paragraph 11 of the written statement filed in the suit. Annexure SCA 8 containing statement of Bhagwati reinforces the fact that Bhagwati is the son of daughter of Ratipal.