RAM SURAT Vs. RAM CHARITTAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.D. Ojha learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ikram Ahmad for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) The dispute relates to Khata No. 97 and plot Nos. 192, 268 and plot No. 11 situate in village Bhainsahia District Basti which originally belonged to one Jeevan. After his death the said land come to be recorded in the name of his daughter, Smt. Parvati. The petitioner moved application on 18.6.1964 for recording his name on the ground that he had been cultivating the land on "Batai" from the life time of Jeevan and is in possession and has acquired Sir-dari rights. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bansi District Basti, got an enquiry made and on the basis of report submitted by Tehsildar, vide order dated 28.8.1964 directed to expunge the name of Smt. Parvati and to record the name of the petitioner as Sirdar. In the meantime, Smt. Parvati made an application dated 31.7.1964 for grant of Bhumidari Sanad and on the same day executed a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 8. Thereafter, the respondents filed a suit for declaration of their rights under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was dismissed on 6.9.1965 and the petitioner was held to be Sirdar in possession. The respondents challenged the said judgment in appeal but the proceedings were abated due to intervention of the consolidation proceedings. On an application filed by the petitioner Bhumidhari Sanad granted in favour of Smt. Parvati was cancelled on 13.12.1965 on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained with untrue allegations. An application to recall the said order moved by Smt. Parvati was also dismissed on 18.12.1965.

(3.) During consolidation operation two sets of the objections were filed under Sec. 9-A (2) of the Act. One by respondent Nos. 1 to 8 claiming Bhumidhari right on the basis of sale deed executed by Smt. Parvati in their favour and other objection was filed by Smt. Parvati. Later on she moved an application that she has transferred all her rights in the land in dispute in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and they should be recorded as Bhumidhar. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.2.1966 dismissed both the objections. Only respondent No. 1 to 8 filed an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 3.10.1968. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 to 8 filed revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.3.1972.