MAHRAJI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SHEOBARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to Sheo Baran respondent No. 2 (since deceased and survived by legal representatives), he and original petitioners were related to each other through the following pedigree:

(2.) According to petitioners, Shiv Dutt had only two sons Bali and Baliraj. Sukhraj was not son of Shiv Dutt.

(3.) Land in dispute was recorded in the names of petitioners or their ancestors since 1330 fasli. In consolidation proceedings, respondent No. 2 Shiv Baran filed objections claiming 1/3 share in agricultural land comprised in seven Khatas, three of village Lokapur and four of village Baspur. Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the above pedigree claimed that even though his name was never recorded in the revenue records however he being grandson of Shiv Dutt was entitled to 1/3 share in the land which initially belonged to Shiv Dutt and thereafter devolved upon his descendants. Consolidation Officer, Badlapur, District Jaunpur before whom the case was registered as 150 and 151, rejected the claim of the respondent No. 2 holding that he was not the grandson of Shiv Dutt.