JEET RAM Vs. SOM DAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shiv Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

(2.) Nobody is present on behalf of the private respondent in spite of the sufficient service upon the private respondent.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to khata Nos. 247, 474 and 572 situated at Village- Kalandi, Pargana and Tahsil- Sardhana, District- Meerut. The aforementioned khata were recorded in the name of Raja Ram (grand-father of the petitioner). The Raja Ram had two sons, namely, Harcharan (father of the petitioner) and Shiv Lal (father of respondent Nos. 1 to 6). After the death of Raja Ram, the name of sons of Shiv Lal was recorded, accordingly, petitioner's father challenged the entry in the name of Shiv Lal before the revenue authorities but due to notification issued under Sec. 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"), the dispute could not be settled by the revenue authorities. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question a title objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner' father pleading that Raja Ram had died on 14/7/1977 and he had never executed any Will or any other document in favour of any person in respect to disputed khata. In the aforementioned proceeding under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer, four issues were framed and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 9/5/1986 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner's father for cotenancy in the disputed khata and the entry in the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (sons of Shiv Lal) was maintained. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 9/5/1986, appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was heard and dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 28/10/1991. Against the appellate order dtd. 28/10/1991, petitioner's father filed revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was heard and allowed by the Joint Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 30/7/1993 granting cotenancy right to the petitioner's father for 1/2 share in the disputed khata. Against the revisional order dtd. 30/7/1993, Civil Misc. Writ Petition was filed before this Court by respondent Nos. 1 to 6, which was allowed vide judgment dtd. 3/7/2003 setting aside the revisional order dtd. 30/7/1993 and the matter was remanded back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh keeping in mind the observation made in the body of the judgment. In compliance of the order of this Court dtd. 3/7/2003, revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner's father was heard afresh. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 25/2/2005 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner's father, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: