HUBRAJI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. This writ petition is taken up in the revised list. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

(2.) HEARD Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(3.) THE submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the D. D. C. permitting Daya Shanker to lead fresh evidence in the shape of an expert opinion regarding thumb impression of Ram Suchit, was an excessive exercise of jurisdiction. It is also submitted that on the date of death of Ram Suchit, his three sisters namely petitioner, Smt. Rajkali and Smt. Satila were alive, and under Section 171 of UP. Z. A. & L. R. Act all the three sisters would be the heirs and successors of Ram Suchit. Smt. Rajkali died in the year 1974 therefore, under Sections 172/171 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act Smt. Hubraji will alone be the heir and successor of Ram Suchit. THE sons of other two sisters could not claim their right under the law. THE next submission is that the respondent No. 1 has wrongly given a finding that in the event, the adoption deed is not proved then Trijugi Narain, Ramji and Shyamji shall also be declared as heirs and successors. Since they had not preferred any appeal before the S. O. C. and the respondent No. 1 himself had dismissed the revision of Trijugi Narain on this very ground, therefore while allowing the revision of Daya Shanker no right can be given to the sons of two sisters of Smt. Hubraji. It is also argued that the Consolidation Officer and S. O. C. have recorded a conclusive finding on the basis of evidence on record that the ingredient of a valid adoption giving and taking ceremony as Dattak Home have not been set aside by the D. D. C. and on the contrary, the entire case has been remanded with a direction to decide the claim of Daya Shanker on the basis of expert evidence, specially on the face of specific finding of the S. O. C. that the thumb impression on the alleged adoption deed is absolutely blurred and cannot be examined. No evidence was led by Daya Shanker required under the law save for the alleged adoption deed which was not proved by cogent evidence in accordance with law.