AMAR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners challenge an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-2-1977, exercising its jurisdiction under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition are that in proceedings under section 9-A (2) of the Act an objection was filed by the respondent no. 4 claiming 1/2 share in khata nos. 1 and 205 alleging that previously both the khatas (1 and 205) were one which was recorded in the name of Smt. Ram Piari widow of Laxman and Nanka son of Fakira. After the death of Smt. Ram Piari the name of Amar Singh was recorded and after the death of Nanka, Dhani Ram was recorded. In view of this, half share was claimed by the respondent no. 4 and remaining half share was with all the petitioners. It was further alleged that in 1958 Smt. Ram Piari deposited 10 times land revenue to the extent of 2/3 share and obtained Bhumidhari Sanad of 2/3 share. A suit was filed claiming half share which was abated on account of consolidation proceedings.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation who was passing an order of reversal setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has failed to consider the oral evidence which was available on record. It has also been urged that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have placed reliance on the khatauni of 1318 F where 2/3 share is entered in the ancestor's name of the petitioners and 1/3 of Dhani Ram. Petitioners branch alone were paying land revenue to the extent of 2/3 share, and, this was on the basis of some settlement and when the Deputy Director of Consolidation was passing an order of reversal then without considering all these material evidence on the record, he has erred in law in allowing the revision.