RAM DULAREY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling ag grieved by an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners under Sec tion 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act affirming thereby the order passed by the Appellate Authority uphold ing the decision of the Consolidation Officer directing for the expunction of the names of Dularey and others the recorded tenure-holders and the recording of Janak Dhari, Girdhari and Bal Mukund as the Bhumidhars of the land in dispute, they have now approached this ( nun seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) THE appellate authority, however, came to the conclusion that Beni and Smt. Hansi both had died before conciliation had been recorded. According to the ap pellate authority there was no justification for discarding the Samjhauta arrived at during the proceedings contemplated under Section 25-A of the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act. So far as the docu ment dated 23- 11-62 was concerned the appellate authority was of the view that the said document could not be treated to be a sale-deed as it has been specifically men tioned in the document itself that it was an Ikrarnama. THE said document the due execution whereof had been established was utilised by the appellate authority for upholding the claim of the contesting respondents about their having remained in actual cultivatory possession of the plot in dispute. Treating the descendants of Beni to be bound by the admissions of their predecessor-in- interest and his disclaimer about any interest in the land in dispute, the appellate authority dismissed the ap peal vide the order dated 5-1-87.