ACHHAIBAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.1.1976 and 29.1.1977 passed by Settlement Officer consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.

(2.) AT the start of Consolidation proceedings the dispute between the parties was with regard to khata No. 2,3,4,5, 84, 86 and 90. One Smt. Phulpatia filed an objection in respect of khatas claiming to be the daughter and heir of Mst. Sukhia. Another objection was filed by respondent No. 3 Shyam Narain on behalf of his minor son Lallan alias Lal Bahadur in respect of aforesaid khatas claiming rights as son and sole heir of Mst. Sukhia. The petitioners also filed three objections on the ground that Bipat, husband of Smt. Sukhia belonged to their family. After death of Bipat Mst. Sukhia remarried with respondent No. 3, Shyam Narain and as such ceased to have any interest in the khatas. Her name was wrongly recorded in the revenue records and was liable to be expunged and the petitioners are entitled to have shares according to their pedigree.

(3.) THE objections filed by Smt. Phulpatia and Lallan alias Lal Bhadur minor were rejected and the petitioners and respondents second set were held to be co -sharer. Since khata No. 4 and 5 were in the nature of grove as such the same were not partitioned. In the remaining 5 khatas they were allotted share according to the pedigree. The objections of Lallan alias Lal Bahadur and Smt. Phulpatia both claiming as heirs of Mst. Sukhia was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground vide order dated 21.9.1973 their claim as heir of Mst. Sukhia with regard to property situate in village Newada was already rejected and the same operated as resjudicata.