GOBARDHAN Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The Petitioner prays to quash the order, dated 12-10-1970 of the Consolidation Officer, Samaria, district Jaunpur (Respondent No. 3) passed in case Nos. 8356 to 8361, -the ' Appellate Order, dated 23-12-1971 of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Jaunpur Respondent No. 2. in Appeal Nos. 409, 318, 319 and 324 and the Revisional Order, dated 15-10-1972 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur (Respondent No. 1) dismissing his Revision Nos. 439, 441, 440 and 442. The Facts :

(2.) THE relevant facts are as under. : THEre appears to be a dispute concerning right, title, and interest in regard to the lands bearing Khata Nos: ,26, 60, 61 and 66 of village Jaisingpur. THE basic year consolidation entry of Khata No. 26 is in the name of Respondent Nos. 5 to- 8 Deo Raj, Munni Lal, Sita Ram and Jai Ram, sons of Bharos, of Khata Nos. 60 and 66 in the name of the Petitioner and Smt. Moghani and of Khata No. 66 in the name of the petitioner, Smt. Moghani and Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Suit No. 132 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the Petitioner along with Smt. Moghani for a declaration that they are the sale bhumidars of the 13 plots detailed at the foot of the plaint, which apart in to khata Nos. 26 and 66 aforementioned and that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (Devraj, Munni Lal, Sita Ram and Jai Ram sons of Bharos) and defendant No. 5 had no interest in those lands. THEir case was that Hardayal was the common ancestor; that Jhulai was one of the four sons of Katwaru who was one of the, several grandson of Hardayal and that they are successor in interest of Jhulai. It appears that they claimed that Katwaru and Ghura are one and the same person. Defendant No. 1 Devraj contested the suit pleading that the plaintiffs do not belong to the family of Hardayal ; that Jhulai; through whom the plaintiffs claim relationship with Hardayal, was not his great grandson as alleged rather Hulai was son of Ghura and Katwaru are not the name of same person. THE suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that Jhulai was son of Katwaru, who was grandson of Hardayal. THE plaintiffs went up in Appeal. By his judgment and decree, dated 29-8-1964, the Additional Collector (Judicial), Varanasi, dismissed their appeal No. 295/7/907 of 1963-64 of Jaunpur holding that the finding of the trial court is perfectly correct. THE plaintiffs went up in Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. By his order, dated 6-11-1969 the Judicial Member, Board of Revenue, passed an order of abatement of the suit along with the Appeal under Section 5 (b) of the U. P. "consolidation of Holdings Act. In the meantime the basic year consolidation record was prepared in regard to lands of Khata No. 26 in the name of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 sons of Bharos, of Khata Nos. 60 and 61 in the name of the Petitioner and Smt. Moghani ; of Khata No 66 in the name of the Petitioner, Smt. Moghani and Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. THE Petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 (A) (2) of the Act before the Assistant Consolidation Officer irapleadihg co-plaintiff Mst. Moghani as Opposite Party No. 1, Sheo Dhari, son of Ram Nandan (another heir of the common ancestor Hardayal) as Opposite Party No. 2, Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as opposite party Nos. 3 by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein. THEse to 6, apart from some other persons. Objection was also filed objections were registered as Case Nos. 8356 to 8361. An objection was also filed by 'respondent No. 4 Sheo Dhari for recording his name as co-tenant along with Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 which was registered as Case No. 8368. THE parties reiterated their case and lead evidence-Oral and documentary. By order,- dated 12-10-1970, the Consolidation Officer, Samaria (Respondent No. 3) to whom the objections were forwarded, was pleased to reject the objection of the Petitioner and allowed that of Respondent No. 4. THE Petitioner went up in appeals. His Appeal Nos. 409, 318, 319 and 324 were dismissed but Appeal No. 326 was allowed by a common order, dated 23-12-1971. Against the appellate order, Revision Nos. 439, 441, 440 and 442 were preferred by the Petitioner, Revision No. 601 was preferred by Baijnath and Rivision No. 571 was preferred by Dev Raj (Respondent no. 5 ). All revisions were dismissed by a common order, dated 15-10-1972. THE Submissions :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner, apart from reiterating his submissions, emphasised that the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in preference to the latest decision in Ram Prasad relied upon by Mr. Rai are binding on this Court.