SHAMBHU NATH Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 9. The dispute involved in the present writ petition relates to twenty five plots of khata No. 259 having a total area of 12 -7 -0, hereinafter referred to as the disputed plots. In the basic year name of Ram Sundar, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 was recorded as sole tenant of the disputed plots. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and late Bhola Nath, father of petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 filed an objection under Sec. 9A(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the C.H.) Act, before the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad claiming co -tenancy rights in the disputed plots alongwith the recorded tenure holder. Their claim was founded upon the allegations that parties descended from common ancestors Dev Saran, Ram Saran and Ram Nandan, sons of Vidhata. Ram Saran died issueless. The disputed plots were acquired by Dev Saran and Ram Nandan jointly. Ram Nandan and Ram Sundar, son of Dev Saran were recorded as co -tenants of the disputed plots in the record of rights. On the death of Ran Nandan, the names of his sons petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and Bhola Nath (since deceased) came to be recorded in his place as co -tenants of the disputed plots along with Ram Sundar on the basis of succession in 1354 fasli and continued as such in khatauni of 1360 and 1362 fasli but later their names were illegally expunged from the record of rights although they had remained in continuous possession thereof along with other co -tenants till the date of filing of their objections before the Consolidation Officer. Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 had also filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming co -tenancy right in the disputed plots along with petitioners and Ram Sundar, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

(2.) Their claims were contested by Ram Sundar, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 on the ground that the disputed plots were the sir of its erstwhile zamindar who had settled the same in favour of Ram Sundar who had thereafter become sole sirdar/tenant thereof. The names of one Ganesh, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and Bhola Nath, sons of Ram Nandan were wrongly recorded in the khasra of 1362 fasli which were rightly expunged by the Tehsildar by his order dated 19.10.1955 passed by him in proceedings under Ss. 33 of U.P.L.R. Act on the basis of compromise dated 31.8.1955 (Annexure -CA3) filed by late Bhola Nath in the aforesaid proceeding, in which Bhola Nath had admitted that neither he nor his brothers, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had any concern with the disputed plots and Ram Sundar was the sole tenant thereof and after passing of the order dated 19.10.1955 neither the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and late Bhola Nath nor Ram Nandan, father of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 could claim any co -tenancy rights in the disputed plots. The Consolidation Officer, Allahabad by his order dated 23.8.1971 allowed the petitioners' objection holding that they had half share in the disputed plots. However, the objection of the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 was dismissed by him by the same order (Annexure -1).

(3.) The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of Ram Sundar, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 of sole tenancy in respect of the disputed plots founded on the order dated 19.10.1955 passed by the Tehsildar in proceedings under Sec. 33 of the U.P.L.R. Act based on the compromise dated 31.8.1955 on the ground that the admission made by late Bhola Nath in mutation proceeding that he and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had no interest in the disputed plots and Ram Sundar alone was entitled to be recorded as sole tenant of the disputed plots and that their names were wrongly recorded was in substance transfer of their sirdari rights in favour of co -sirdar Ram Sundar which was void under Sec. 166 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and their rights in the disputed plot did not stood extinguished or transferred in favour of Ram Sundar by virtue of the order dated 19.10.1955 passed by the Tehsildar on the basis of compromise dated 31.8.1955 which itself was invalid as there is no provision in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act permitting transfer by one co -sirdar of his sirdari rights in favour of another co -sirdar.