BALDEO Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute given rise to this writ petition pertains to khata nos. 270 and 272 of village Gondasara, Pargana Jamania, District Ghazipur and plot no. 2337 of Khata no. 209. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the dispute under Section 9-A (5) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (from hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed an order dated 20-8-1973 against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order petitioners have approached to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THE brief facts given rise to this writ petition are as follows.

(2.) IN the basic year records in respect of Khata nos. 209, plot no 2337 was recorded in the name of the petitioner and respondent nos. 6 to 10 and one Sitaram minor son of Mahesh. Khata no. 270 was recorded in the name of the petitioners, Munir Khan, Sajjad Husain (respondents 4 and 5) and Sitaram minor son of Mahesh as tenure holder. Khata no. 272 was recorded in the name of petitioner, Munir Khan, Sajja Khan and Babulal Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed objection (registered as case no. 4748) alleging that they are in possession over the plot no. 2337 (area 4 Biswa 15 dhur) through a sale deed and were its bhumidhars. They have also alleged that they are in possession over the plot no. 2546 (area 6 biswa 8 dhur) for the last more than 12 years and they became sirdars. All the consolidation authorities have recorded concurrence finding of facts and in view of the admitted fact that the sale deed was executed by the petitioners in favour of respondents no. 4 and 5 in respect of plot no. 2337 pertaining to Khata no. 209 the right and interest of the petitioners have come to an end and the judgments of the Consolidation Authorities are final so far as this plot is concerned. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed another objection alleging that they having in possession over the plot no. 270 through a sale deed and the name of all the other persons entered therein should be delected. According to the petitioners they have half share in khata no. 270 and they have not sold any share in khata No. 270 to respondents 4 and 5 and respondents 4 and 5 are only entitled to the share of Janga. and others, respondents 6 to 11. The other set of objection was filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 claiming that they are entitled to 3/8 share each i. e. 3/4 share while Babulal was entitled to 1/4 share in khata no. 272. The petitioners also filed an objection that the objection of respondents 4 and 5 was incorrect and the petitioners are entitled to 1/4 share while Babulal was entitled to half share.

(3.) I have heard Sri Yatendra Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri G. N. Verma for the respondents 4 and 5.