RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Standing Counsel for State.

(2.) In the present case, father of the original petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit under Sec. 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"?) claiming 3/4 share in land in dispute, whereas the share of contesting original defendants to be distributed in remaining part of share i.e. 1/4.

(3.) The suit was contested and contesting defendants have filed a written statement denying claim of plaintiff. The claim of plaintiff was essentially based on C.H. Form No. 4, C.H. Form No. 5 and C.H. Form No. 45, prepared during the consolidation proceedings as well as Khatauni of 1371 Fasli, where in his share, was shown to be 2/3. During suit proceedings statement of plaintiff was also recorded.