RAM ROOP Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the appellate authority dated 27-4-1974 contained in Annexure '2' as well as that of the revisional authority dated 28-5-1975 contained in Annexure '3' attached with the writ petition.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the contesting respondents had claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land. The petitioners had contested the claim of the contesting respondents on the allegation that the disputed land was acquisition of their ancestors, Bahadur and Sahadur, and the contesting respondents had no share in the disputed land.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted in reply that the disputed land was originally shown in the names of the ancestros of the parties ; hence their claim has been rightly accepted by the higher consolidation authorities. THE second submission made on behalf of the contesting respondents is that the summon relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not conclusively prove that the interest of the ancestors of the contesting respondents became extinct in the disputed land. THE third submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent is that on the materials on record, it has not been demonstrated that the claim of the contesting respondents became extinct due to ouster and hostile possession of the petitioners or their ancestors over the disputed land ; hence in the circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to say that the impugned judgments suffer from any error of law much less patent error.