MATHURA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.S. Chudhary, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Counsel for contesting respondents. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title dispute. Agricultural land in dispute initially belonged to Ramadhin. Original petitioner No. 1, Mathura was his grand son. As father of Mathura had died during life time of his father Ramadhin, hence on the death of Ramadhin, name of Mathura was mutated over the agricultural land in dispute in 1363 Fasli (1955 -56 A.D.). Thereafter, over some of the plots forming part of the agricultural land inherited by Mathura from his grand -father, names of different contesting opposite parties were mutated. When consolidation started in the area in question, 19 objections were filed, some by Mathura and some by some of the contesting respondents of this writ petition. Some of the contesting respondents had claimed right over some of the plots on the basis of sale -deeds by Mathura, some on the basis of adverse possession, some claimed on the basis of compromise and some on the basis of earlier Court orders. Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh through order dated 10.8.1969 decided all the objections, which had been registered as Case No. 6117 and others. Against the said order, four appeals were filed being Appeals No. 7187/482, 7183/485, 7269/485 and 7018/483. First appeal was filed by Mathura, the second by Babu Lal, original opposite party No. 4, third by Awadesh Singh and others, opposite parties No. 8 and others, fourth by Nackchhed Singh, original opposite party No. 21. Assistant S.O.C., Pratapgarh dismissed all the appeals through order dated 8.9.1972. The appellants therefore filed four revisions being Revisions No. 7473, 7478, 7475 and 8040. D.D.C., Pratapgarh dismissed first three revisions, however Revision No. 8040 filed by Babu Lal was allowed partly and the orders of the Courts below in respect of plot Nos. 245 and 248 were set aside and the said plots were directed to be entered in the khata of applicant Babu Lal as in the basic year. Against the said order of the D.D.C., two writ petitions were filed. One is the instant writ petition and the other was Writ Petition No. 680 (Consolidation) of 1976, which was filed by Babu Lal in respect of that part of Revisional Court's order through which his revision had been dismissed in part. The said writ petition has already been decided.

(2.) THE C.O. had framed ten issues and decided six issues, i.e. issues No. 1 to 5 and 7 together. The first argument raised by learned Counsel for petitioners is that each of the said issues related to different plots claimed by different persons on different grounds hence each of the aforesaid issues should have been tried separately. First of all strict principles of pleadings, issues and judgments as provided under C.P.C. are not applicable to the consolidation proceedings. Secondly, the said issues had something in common, hence there was no harm in deciding the said issues jointly.

(3.) THERE was absolutely no dispute that property initially belonged to Ramadhin grand -father of Mathura. Smt. Koela wife of Mathura examined herself as witness before C.O. and stated that no medicine was given to Mathura. Mathura was neither treated nor given any medicine for his alleged madness. Smt. Koela stated that Mathura was mad for nine years, however his witness stated that he was mad for two years. Absolutely no written document regarding treatment like prescription etc. was filed. Mathura had appeared as witness in some earlier cases copies of which were filed before the Consolidation Officer, the statements were given in 1961, 1962. Mathura was contesting those cases until 1962. Mathura was not examined before the C.O. The C.O. therefore under issue No. 10 held that Mathura was not of unsound mind. In respect of unsoundness of Mathura's mind, Courts below also mentioned that in 1967 Mathura was punished in a criminal case.