NIRDOSH KUMAR Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Arjun Singhal, for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Pundir, for the contesting respondent -2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.12.2014 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of their share in basic consolidation year khata 241 of village Budhana Banger, pargana Budhana, district Muzaffarnagar, which was recorded in the names of Data Ram, Daya Ram and Mangu sons of Baljeet. Data Ram was dead and Subhash Chand (respondent -2) is his heir. Daya Ram was dead and Smt. Chandro was his heir. In CH Form -4, share of three brothers were noted as 1/3 each. Subhash Chand (respondent -2) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 105) under section 9 -A of the Act, stating therein that in previous consolidation, land recorded in khatas 861, 862 and 863 were amalgamated. In khata 861, all the three brothers, namely Data Ram, Daya Ram and Mangu and their mother Smt. Bhagirathi were having equal shares. In khata 862, all the three brothers, namely Data Ram, Daya Ram and Mangu were having equal shares. While khata 863 [consisting plot 3946 (area 2 -0 -0 bigha) and 4048 (area 0 -12 -0 bigha)] was exclusive sirdari holdings of Data Ram. They also filled up CH Form -16, showing their share. Old plot 4048 (new plot 3411 of khata 241) was chak out, which is exclusive property of Subhash Chand. Total valuation of Chak 271 (new khata 241 except plot 3411) was 70.14 annas, in which exclusive sirdari holding of Data Ram i.e. plot 3946 (area 2 -0 -0 bigha), having valuation of 13.50 anna, was also included. In remaining valuation of 56.64 anna of khata 271, three brothers had equal share. Share of Subhash Chand would be 13.50+18.88=32.38 anna i.e. 3238/7014 share while share of remaining two brothers would be 18.88 anna each i.e. 1888/7014 share and plot 3411 (area 2 -0 -0 bigha) was exclusive property of Subhash Chand. The claim of 1/3 share by remaining brothers is barred under section 49 of the Act.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties had adduced their oral and documentary evidence. Deputy Director of Consolidation was competent to decide all the issues relating to fact also under section 48 of the Act. In such circumstances, he would have decided the revision finally on merit, instead of remanding the case. Remand will unnecessarily delay the proceeding and the parties will be harassed. He submits that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation be set aside and the matter be remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision on merit. The Counsel for respondent -2 has no objection, in deciding the revision on merit.