KISHORI ALIAS LALOO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 15-2-1975, 21-12-1973 and 13-12-1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case are these. Plots in four Khatas, i. e. 156, 266, 301 and 177 situate in Village Chilbili, Pargana Mahaich, District Varanasi are in dispute. THE first two khatas were recorded in the name of Faqir, Respondent No. 4, and the plots in khata no. 301 were recorded in the name of Loknath, Gopal and Nandoo alias Nandlal, Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7. Whereas plots of khata no. 177 were recorded in the name of Moti Lal and Hira Lal, Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and Jieut, Nand Lal and Purshottam, Respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12. An objection under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner in respect of khata Nos. 156 and 266 alleging that Faqir, Respondent No. 4, has no concern with the land in dispute which was Sir and Khudkasht land of the petitioner before the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951) (for short the Act) and after the date of vesting he became bhumidhar, that as the Respondent No. 4 was trying to interfers with the possession of the petitioner, consequently Suit No. 5 of 1954 (Kishori v. Faqir) for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession was filed against Respondent no. 4 by the petitioner on 5-1-1954 in the Civil Court. A true copy of j the plaint was filed as Annexure ' 6 ' to the petition. THE aforesaid suit was dismissed on 18-10-1956 by the Munsif. THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge which was allowed on 29-10-1958 and the suit for permanent injunction was decreed (vide Annexure ' 7 ' to the petition). Dakhal Dihani was taken on 14-11-1957 by the petitioner. Dakhal Dehani has been filed as Annexure ' 7 ' to the petition. THE second appeal filed by Respondent No. 4 in this court (Second Appeal No. 2328 of 1957, Fakir v. Kishorilal) was dismissed by the judgment of this Court dated 12-7-1961 against which Special Appeal No. 323 of 1961 was filed which was also dismissed on 9-7-1965 by a Division Bench of this court. THEse judgments of the Civil Court and of this Court in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in dispute operate as Res Judicata. THE revenue enteries, however, continued in favour of Respondent No. 4, hence the petitioner has to file a suit under section 229-B of the Act for declaration of sirdari/ bhumidhari rights and for expunction of the entries in the name of Respondent no. 4. During the pendency of that suit under section 229-B of the Act notification under section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was made on 15-5-71. Consequently the suit under section 229-B of the Act was abated under section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the alternative the petitioner alleged to be bhumidhar and prayed that the entries in the name of Respondent No. 4 may be expunged.

(3.) ONE Kanhaiya, father of Ram Shankar, Respondent No. 19, filed an objection claiming co-tenancy rights along with the petitioner which was denied by him.