RAJ PATI Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.2013 and Consolidation Officer dated 31.12.1999 passed in title proceedings under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. In appeal the petitioner has filed an affidavit of Darbari son of Ram Dhari, admitting the claim of the petitioner. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation who by order dated 20.04.2006 held that as from the khatauni 1359 F it is proved name of both the branches were jointly recorded in other khata as such the family of Gokul and Dashrath were joint family. Relying upon the endorsement in the remark column of khatauni 1323 F it was held that land in khata in dispute was also joint family property accordingly the petitioner was declared co -sharer of half share in the land in dispute. The respondents filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31.10.2013 and the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside. Deputy Director of Consolidation summoned original khatauni of 1323 F, in which there was no endorsement in remark column as such extract of khatauni produced by the petitioner was held as forged document. He further found that even in khatauni 1292 F, name of Gokul alone was recorded. There is no evidence that the property in dispute was over recorded in the name of Shiv Nandan as such the petitioner could not prove that the property in dispute was either inherited from common ancestor or it was jointly acquired by Gokul and Dashrath. On this finding the revision was allowed and the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was set aside. Hence this writ petition has been filed.