SHIVA NATH Vs. DDC VARANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri C.K. Rai and Sri Lal Babu Lal and for the petitioners and Sri M.N. Singh, for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petitions have been field against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 12.07.1999, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17.09.2001 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.03.2002 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) ALL the aforesaid objections were consolidated and tried by the Consolidation Officer. Before the Consolidation Officer apart from documentary evidence, Balli, Ram Adhar, Harpat, Shivnath, Bihari and Munshi were examined as witnesses. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 12.07.1999 held that the alleged surrender deed dated 09.07.1945 is void inasmuch as on the date of surrender by Ayodhya, Ganesh was alive and Ayodhya had no right to surrender the land in dispute. He further found that due to execution of the alleged patta dated 07.02.1950 in favour of Salik and Ram Adhar over three plots claimed by them was not proved nor the patta was ever acted upon. The names of Salik and Ram Adhar were recorded for the first time by the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 11.09.1959 although at that time Supervisor Kanoongo had no right to make any entry in the khatauni as such the objection of Salik and Ram Adhar has no merit and is not liable to be accepted. He further found that so far as the claim of co -tenancy of Jangaliram is concerned, Jangaliram himself claimed to be son of Ahilya, who was daughter of Bageshwari. Bageshwari filed a civil suit for claiming co -tenancy in the land in dispute which was decided against her by the judgment dated 13.12.1963 and the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1963 has not been challenged any further and became final as such claim of Jangaliram is barred by res judicata and his objection was also dismissed. He further found that claim of adverse possession by Sunder and Bhola were not proved. In respect of co -tenancy of Shivnath and Achhaiber, it was found that one of the branches of the sons of Sukkhal, namely, Jittu grandson of Sommar did not file any objection claiming co -tenancy in the land in dispute. Similarly, the branch of Gopi also did not file any objection. The land of village Sagahat was recorded in the name of Sukkhal son of Churaman in 1291 F as well as 1309 F but in 1334 F, it was recorded in the name of Ganesh alone with the period of cultivation of 12 years and same entry continued till 1356 F and 1359 F with the different period of cultivation. Smt. Kalawati filed a lease deed dated 27.10.1914 and claimed that the land in dispute was settled with Ganesh alone by the Zamindar and since then it was recorded in his name and he was in exclusive possession over it and his other brothers have no share in it. So far as the land of village Meerapur is concerned, only two plots were recorded in the name of Sukkhal in1291 F. These two plots along with six other plots came to be recorded in the name of Ganesh in 1334 F with different period of cultivation which shows that the land in dispute was settled afresh with Ganesh along with other plots. Therefore, the identity as well as area and period of cultivation all has been changed. Shivnath, Achhaiber, Balli, Kedar, could not prove their joint possession over the land in dispute. On these finding all the objections were dismissed by order dated 12.7.1999.