BABU NANDAN UPADHYAYA Vs. D D C VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-7-75 passed by the D. D. C. , respondent No. 1 and the order dated 15-5-75 passed by -. the Settlement Off- icer, Consolidation, respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE disputed property is plot no. 206, area 7 decimal. THE undis puted position is that Sita Ram, the father of the parties, was Zamindar of this property. Allegedly, in the year 1354 Fasli, he made a settlement in favour of his eldest son, the petitioner, whereas, respondents No. 3 and 4, the other two sons were minors. Another feature of the case is that the land was recorded partly in the years 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli. THE worthy father was quite conscious of the fact that the property will go outside the family the moment the Z. A. notification was issued as it was very much in the air that Z. A. Legislation was going to be passed shortly. He did not go long in search of a proper tenant and readily found his worthy son, the petitioner as a good character in whose favour a settlement could be made in order to ward off the evil effects of Z. A. Legislation. It is in this context that the case has to be viewed. Another picture of the case is that Sita Ram, the father of the parties died sometimes in the year 1970-71 near about the notification under Section 4 of the CH Act. THE family was shown joint for pretty long time. Even on Feb. 2, 1966, parties jointly purchased properties. In the Kutumb Register, they were shown jointly recorded.

(3.) BOTH the courts have applied their minds on the evidence and circumstances available on the record. I do not find any misdirection on their part giving any scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.