GABBOO Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The dispute involved in this writ petition relates to the plots Nos. 2472/54, 2891/2/18, 3088/30, 5644/34, 5647/29 and 3089/1 of plots No. 885 (hereinafter referred to as the disputed plots). In the basic year khatauni petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 Ghanshyam, Khatai, Algoo and Sanehi were recorded as co -tenants of the aforesaid khata. Murat respondent No. 2 and Jaipal grand father of Bankey respondent No. 3 and Murat filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer under Sec. 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act hereinafter referred to as the C.H. Act claiming co -tenancy rights in the plot No. 885. Another objection was filed by Triveni father of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 claiming sole tenancy rights in the disputed plots and co -tenancy rights in other plots of khata No. 885 along with other recorded tenants. According to Triveni father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the names of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 recorded as co -tenants of the disputed plots were liable to be expunged and he was entitled to be recorded as sole tenant of the disputed plots on the strength of the compromise decree dated 29.03.1967 passed by civil court in original suit No. 111 of 1966 which was filed by the petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 against late Triveni, father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for a declaration of their sirdari rights in the disputed plots and for ejectment of late Triveni therefrom, which had attained finality as even the original suit No. 1020 of 1968 filed by petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 before Munsif, Deoria for cancelling the compromise decree dated 29.03.1967 passed by the civil court in original suit No. 111 of 1966 was dismissed by him by his judgment and decree dated 31.07.1970 and civil appeal No. 2671 of 1970 preferred by the petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1970 was also dismissed by the lower appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 16.03.1971. Consolidation Officer by his order dated 26.03.1981 disposed of the objection filed by late Triveni alone with other objections filed before him by other tennure holders by order dated 26.03.1981, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of late Triveni for being recorded as sole tenants of the disputed plots. Aggrieved from the order of the C.O., two appeals were preferred before the SOC by the petitioners, namely, civil appeal No. 1459 and 1455 under Sec. 11 of the U.P.C.H. Act which were allowed by him by his order dated 07.09.1981, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 07.09.1981 set aside the order dated 26.03.1981 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and restored the basic year entries.

(3.) The order dated 07.09.1981 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by respondent No. 2 Murat and late Triveni by filing a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria respondent No. 1 which was numbered as revision No. 509 and allowed by him in part by his order dated 07.02.1983, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure -3 to this writ petition. It appears that Triveni died during the pendency of the aforesaid revision before the respondent No. 1 and he was substituted by his sons Ram Asray and Ram Prit respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively.