RADHEY SHYAM Vs. BALRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (for short, DDC). The facts in both the writ petitions being similar, the matters were heard and are being decided together.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition? relates to khata nos. 337, 341, 350 and four plots recorded in khata no. 249. while the dispute in the connected petition relates to 4 plots of khata no. 249. In the basic year record khata no. 337 was recorded in the name of Shiv Shanker, son of Ram Kishan. Khata no. 341 was recorded in the name of Shiv Ratan, son of Gaya Prasad. Khata no. 350 was recorded in the name of Dharam Chand, son of Ram Dulare, while four plots of khata no. 249, namely, plot nos. 55, 60, 61 and 69 were recorded in the name of Radhey Shyam and Munna Lal, sons of Sunder Lal and Sunder Lal son of Gaya Prasad. The land in dispute is situate in village Sewar, paragana Mangalsi, tehsil Suhawal, District Faizabad.

(3.) In all four objections were filed under section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act ((for short, CH Act). Two of them were filed by the petitioner, Radhey Shyam, the third by his brother Munna Lal and the fourth by Shiv Shanker. The objection filed by Radhey Shyam and Munna Lal was barred by time while the objection filed by Shiv Shanker was within time. The case? set up by the petitioner in his objection was that the land in the aforesaid khatas was recorded in his name in 1959 Fasli over 90 bighas 19 biswas of land. These entries were both of exclusive and joint tenure. These entries continued till 1362 Fasli and in the khatanuni of 1362 Fasli an amal daramad was made of an order said to have been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (for short, ACO) on 23.6.1955? on the basis of a compromise giving the rights to the opposite parties in the khatas in question. It is the case of the petitioner that this amal daramad was made fraudulently, without any order having been passed in that regard. It was, therefore, claimed that the name of the recorded tenureholder be expunged and in their place the name of the petitioner be recorded.