KESHO PRASAD Vs. D D C LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20. 12. 72 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (D. D. C.), Ballia, respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. In the basic year, Jeetan, the father of the petitioners was recorded. Even in some earlier records, his name finds place. But in a proceeding for correction of records, Jeetan admitted on 1. 7. 63 that he had no concern with the disputed property. On the basis of this admis sion, learned S. D. O. passed an order for correction of records and the names of respondents were recorded. However, when the consolidation proceedings started, the names of the petitioners also crept in.

(3.) IN this case strangely enough, neither before the S. O. C. nor before the D. D. C. , this admission of Jeetan was sought to be explained. Motilal respondent No. 2 appeared in the witness box. But he did not say anything as to how the ad mission of his father came into being in respect of the disputed property. Under these circumstances, the learned D. D. C. was justified in relying upon the admis sion of Jeetan dated 1. 7. 63, whereby he clearly surrendered his interest, if at all, in respect of the disputed property and admitted the case of the respondents. So this is a conclusion based on evidence available on record.