RAM VRAT TRIPATHI Vs. DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that of the Settle ment Officer, Consolidation dated 14-12- 1990 and 20-3-1989 (Annexures 5 and 3) respectively.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS are under Section 9-A (2) of the UPCH Act which relates to the adjudication of dispute about title between the parties. The dispute re lates to land comprised in Khata No. 203 situated in village Nonapar, Tappa Bhatni' District Deoria which was recorded in the basic year in the name of respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed objection claiming himself to be co-tenant to the extent of 1/3rd share on the ground so stated in the objection, which has been detailed in various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2 of the writ petition. A pedigree was also given in respect to which there appears to be no dispute. The claim was mainly on the ground that the land was Seer of Birja Tiwari and thereafter as in the family in first cadre only Raghunath remained, according to the pedigree as men tioned, the petitioner has 1/3rd share. The claim of the petitioner was resisted mainly on the ground that Ram Cheez adopted Ram Chandra-respondent No. 3 by means of adoption deed dated 23-12-1946 and therefore, in respect to rights of Ram Cheez, respondent No. 3 is entitled to succeed and his name is rightly recorded in the basic year. Par ties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The Consolidation Officer by its judgment dated 24-9-1980 accepted the claim of petitioner and accepted his 1/3rd share. Appeal was filed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner also filed an appeal, apparently under some misconception. Appeal is claimed to have been decided in ex-pane manner without adequate opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, when the ap peal was allowed by judgment dated 20-3-1989, petitioner filed restoration application but thereafter as it was not being properly attended, he filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who dismissed the revision by its judgment dated 14-12-1990 and thus judgment of the Revisional Court and that of the appel late authority are under challenge.

(3.) IN view of aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter in the light of materials as has been placed on record.