HARIHAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, for the petitioner and Sri D.R.S. Chauhan, for respondent-3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18.1.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.12.2014, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The dispute relates to the land of khatas 416, 463 and 464 of village Bakari, tahsil Mohammadabad Gohna, district Mau. In basic consolidation records, khata 416 was recorded in the name of Khedani widow of Soti and khatas 463 and 464 were recorded in the names of Harihar and Harinam, sons of Soti. Udasi (respondent-3) filed an objections for recording her name over khata 463, claiming herself as the daughter of Soti and for deleting the names of Harihar and Harinam. Harihar (the petitioner) filed other objections for recording his name as adopted son of Soti, over khatas 416, 463 and 464, claiming that after death of Soti, his widow Smt. Khedani adopted him, according to Hindu rites and thereafter she executed registered adoption deed on 12.8.1964. Both the cases were consolidated and heard by Consolidation Officer, who by his order dated 8.10.2003 accepted the adoption of the petitioner and allowed his objection and directed for recording his name over khatas 463 and 464 and for deleting the name of Harnam. The objection of the petitioner in respect of the land of khata 416 was allowed by order dated 9.7.2003. Recall applications filed by Udasi were rejected by order dated 16.12.2004. There was an objection of the petitioner in respect of area of plot 20, which was decided by Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.9.2000.

(3.) Udasi filed four appeals from the aforesaid orders of Consolidation Officer, who consolidated the appeals and after hearing the parties by order dated 10.3.2006 held that adoption deed dated 12.4.1964 was not signed by natural father and mother of the petitioner as such under section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, presumption regarding actual ceremonies of adoption on its basis cannot be raised. Ceremonies of adoption has not been proved by any independent evidence. On the other hand it was proved that Udasi was daughter of Soti and Khedani. On these findings, he allowed the appeals and directed for recording the name of respondent-3 over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 30.8.2006 held that although Consolidation Officer had noticed about five daughters of Soti but had not given any findings in respect of remaining four daughters. On these findings, revision was allowed and orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation were set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for framing an issue in respect of the daughters of Soti and decide afresh. After remand, Consolidation Officer dismissed objection of Udasi by order dated 12.12.2007.