SITA RAM Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 7/1/1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh whereby he has allowed the revision preferred at the behest of respondent No. 2.

(3.) The facts in brief, as stated by the petitioner, are that the disputed property was initially recorded in the name of Purai, who is said to have two sons, namely, Sita Ram and Sukhai. Sukhai has pre deceased Purai and therefore in the basic year the property was recorded in the name of Sita Ram. It has further been stated that Khatauni verification, objections were filed by one Kaushaliya, daughter of Sukhai, and objections were also filed by Smt. Jagdei, respondent No. 2. Kaushaliya had claimed herself to be the daughter of Sukhai, while Smt. Jagdei had claimed her name to be mutated on the basis that she was the widow of Sukhai. Smt. Kaushaliya did not pursue the matter before the Consolidation Officer and accordingly her application was dismissed for want of prosecution. The objections filed by Smt. Jagdei were duly considered by the Consolidation Officer. The claim of Smt. Jagdei was rejected on the ground that Purai had died during fasli 1356 to 1359 which is 1949 to 1952 and in the said period, the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 was in operation. According to the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1935, the aspect of succession was governed by Sec. 35. The order of succession did not include the daughter-in-law and hence, application of Smt. Jagdei was rejected. Accordingly, the claim of Sita Ram was found to be consistent and he was held to be entitled to succeed to the entire property of Purai. An appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation again looked into the matter and concurred with the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and held that at the time when Purai died, the U.P. Tenancy Act was in operation, according to which, the daughter-in-law was not included in the list of heirs as per Sec. 35, and therefore, he held that Smt. Jagdei would not succeed to the property of Purai, and held that Sita Ram was alone entitled to the property of Purai and accordingly, rejected the appeal.