JAGDEO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings and involves question of title.

(3.) DISPUTE relates to Khata No. 92 containing plot Nos. 343, 346/1 and 346/2. In the basic year (i.e. the year immediately preceding start of consolidation operation in the area in question) the name of Ram Sumer, respondent No. 3 was recorded as Sirdar of the land in dispute. Petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 tiled objections before CO under Section 9(2) of U.P.C.H. Act contending therein that Sheobhikh and Sheoratan were brothers hence property recorded in the name of Sheobhikh was joint even though the name of Sheoratan and his descendants were never recorded in the revenue records. They claimed co -tenancy on the basis of pedigree given by them and alleged joint tenancy of Sheobhikh and Sheoratan. Respondent No. 4 to 7 could very well file separate objection contending that even if Sheobhikh was exclusive tenure holder, their names should be entered in the revenue records as they were his descendants. Objections before Consolidation Officer (CO) Rajapur, Allahabad were registered as case No. 1.46 Gayadin v. Ram Sumer. CO accepted the objections and directed recording of names of petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 also along with the name of respondent No. 3. CO decided the matter on 13.9.1972. Against the said judgment respondent No. 3 filed appeal No. 777 of 1974. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (ASOC), Allahabad allowed the appeal in part on 21.12.1974. ASOC directed recording of the names of respondents 4 to 7 along with the name of respondent No. 3 in the revenue records. Claims of petitioners were rejected and order in that regard passed by CO was set -aside. Against the said judgment and order petitioners filed revision No. 19/121/44 Jagdeo and Ors. v. Ram Sumer and Ors. Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) Allahabad dismissed the revision on 19.6.1976, hence this writ petition.