SITAWAN Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings involving title dispute. In order to understand the controversy and the relationship of the parties the following pedigree is relevant: <img src="/Docs/648965.jpg">

(3.) In the basic year (the year immediately preceding the start of consolidation operations in the village in question) petitioner's name was recorded in the revenue records over Khata No. 122 which is in dispute. Respondents 1 and 2 through their mother, as they were minor at that time, filed objections under Sec. 9 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming co-tenancy rights along with petitioner Sitawan, Shrimati Jahua (Jugra), mother or respondents 1 and 2 appeared as a witness before the Consolidation Officer. Copy of her statement has been annexed as Annexure C.A. '2' to the counter-affidavit dated 28.3.2003. She stated that property in dispute was acquired by Dhirju and his father Gurudin, that first of all Dhirju died and property in dispute after his death devolved upon his brother Matau and after the death of Matau all his three sons inherited the property, that Shri Prasad son of Matau died issue less hence after his death the property was inherited in equal shares by Sitawan, the petitioner and Sahtu, grand father of respondents 1 and 2. However, in her cross-examination she stated that property was acquired by Gurudin. She also stated that when Dhirja died she had not been married. The case of petitioner was that Dhirja had executed a Will in the year 1950 in his favour hence after the death of Dhirja his name was mutated over the land in dispute in revenue records. Consolidation Officer Nedula, Tahsil Harraiya district Basti decided the matter in favour of petitioner Sitawan and dismissed the objections of respondents 1 and 2 through order dated 22.9.1980. Against the said judgment and order respondents 1 and 2 filed. Appeal No 594. Settlement Officer Consolidation held that in the Will deed, filed by the petitioner, that part of the paper on which year was written was tom. Settlement Officer Consolidation also noted that petitioner had filed documents to show that after depositing 10 times of land revenue he had obtained Bhumidhari Sanad, however, that was of no help to the petitioner as it was not the case of the petitioner that Dhirja had got recorded the name of the petitioner along with him in the year 1949. Settlement Officer Consolidation observed that according to the extracts of revenue records filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 themselves, it was evident that in the Khatauni of 1359-F. name of Dhirja was mentioned under Ziman 6 and in the year 1359 F. only the name of Sitawan was mentioned. Settlement Officer Consolidation also observed that except the land in dispute, the names of all the parties were recorded in the revenue records over the other lands belonging to the family. Appellate Court Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal on 14.5.1981 and directed recording of names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also in the revenue records. Settlement Officer Consolidation held that share of petitioner in the land in dispute was half and rest half share was of respondents 1 and 2. Against the judgment and order dated 14.5.1981, petitioner filed Revision No. 74. District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti through impugned judgment and order dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.