RAM AUTAR YADAV Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Aniruddh Chaturvedi, for the petitioner and Sri Nitin Agrawal, for the contesting respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Deputy Collector dated 21.1.2009, decreeing the suit filed by Maiyadeen and others (respondents -11 to 13) (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') and holding them as sole bhumidhar of the land in dispute and Board of Revenue, U.P., dated 6.2.2009, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE respondents filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 84 of 2008), under section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for declaring them as sole bhumidhar of plot 1536 (area 0.124 hectare) of village Sitapur Mafi, tahsil Karwi and district Chitrakoot. It has been stated in the plaint that the land in dispute was self -acquired property of Kaluwa. Kaluwa was inherited by his son Sukhiwa and after death of Sukhiwa they inherited it. Chunku common ancestor had two sons Janki and Kaluwa. Janki had one son Dukhiwa. Dukhiwa had one son Parsad alias Parsadawa, who in collusion with the Lekhpal got his name mutated over the land in dispute. Thereafter Parsadawa executed two sale -deeds, showing his 1/2 share in the land in dispute, in favour of Awadhesh Prasad (respondent -8) and Jagdish Prasad (father of respondents -9 and 10). Jagdish Prasad executed a sale -deed dated 5.7.1993 in favour of Ram Autar (the petitioner) whose names were illegally mutated in the revenue records, although they had no interest in it.

(3.) THE suit was tried by Additional Deputy Collector. Apart from documentary evidence, the respondents examined Prem Das, Mahipal and Chandra -pal. The petitioner adduced documentary evidence and examined Ram Autar, Indrapal and Jageshwar as witness. Additional Deputy Collector by judgment dated 21.1.2009, held that a family member is the best witness to prove pedigree. Prem Das, Mahipal and Chandrapal belong to the family of Dukhiwa and Sukhiwa and have stated that Janki and Kaluwa were two different persons. Their statement in respect of pedigree was admissible under section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In khatauni 1369 F -1371 F and 1391 F -1396 F, father's name of Dukhiwa was recorded as Janki. Kaluwa had only one son Sukhiwa. On these findings, the suit was decreed holding that the respondents were sole bhumidhar of the land in dispute. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 28 of 2008 -09) which was dismissed by Board of Revenue, U.P. at admission stage by order dated 6.2.2009. Hence this writ petition has been filed.