LAL BACHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected writ petitions arising out the same judgement of Deputy Director of Consolidation and between the same parties. Heard, Sri Shri Kant and Sri Indrasen Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in both the writ petitions.

(2.) The dispute relates to Khata no. 56 of village Padari Aman and Khata no. 97 of village Phulwaria. In the basic year, the petitioners of writ petition no. 5788 of 1973 were recorded as Sirdars of Khatas in dispute. An objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by contesting respondents claiming to be Sirdars on the allegation that khatas belong to their common ancestor. It was alleged that holdings in dispute were acquired by common ancestor Jhaggar who had two sons namely Ram Tahal and Tulsi. The petitioners belong to the branch of Ram Tahal whereas contesting respondents are descendants of Tulsi. After the death of Jhaggar only the name of Ram Tahal came to be recorded in the records though Tulsi being the other son had equal share. The claim was contested by the petitioners on the plea that holdings had not been acquired by common ancestor but was self-acquisition of Ram Tahal. It was also pleaded that identity of holdings was also not the same. The contesting respondents also made a claim on the basis of an ex parte decree passed in a suit filed by them under Section 229 B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. However, Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded a finding that it was alleged by the contesting respondents themselves that suit filed by them under Section 229 B of U.P. Z. A & L. R. Act was abated. The said point is thus of no help to the contesting respondents and rightly the same has not been pressed by the learned counsel during the course of arguments.

(3.) All the three courts have held that holdings have not come in identical form from the time of ancestor Jhaggar as there was variation in area and there was a change in period of tenancy as well as nature of tenure. However, the Deputy Director of consolidation allowed the revision in respect of plots no. 279 and 280 of Khata No. 56 of village Padari Aman and plots no. 947, 948, 949, 950, 951 and 975 of Khata No. 97 of village Phulwaria on the ground that said plots were recorded in the name of common ancestor and also form part of new holdings and as such the contesting respondents are entitled to be declared co-tenure holders of the said plots. With respect to the rest of the plots of two Khatas in dispute the revision was dismissed. The part order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the claim of respondents for the aforesaid plots has been challenged in writ petition no. 5788 of 1973 whereas the order dismissing the claim for the rest of the plots is under challenge in connected writ petition no. 7229 of 1973.