UMA SHANKER Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an objection under Section 9(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of land situated in village Mahuwari Kalan, Pargana Khairagarh, Tehsil Meja, district Allahabad. Although the dispute between the parties initially was in respect of Khata Nos. 45, 65, 104 and 106 of the village but the learned counsel for petitioners has pressed this writ petition only in respect of Khata No. 65. As the writ petition is being pressed in respect of Khata No. 65 only, the adjudication by consolidation authorities in respect of Khata Nos. 45, 104 and 106 has become final between the parties and the controversy is being decided only in respect of Khata No. 65. The Khata in dispute is recorded in basic year in the names of petitioner Uma Shanker and opposite party Smt. Basantia. An objection was filed by opposite parties Shobha, Ram Kishun, Jai Saran and Amrit Lal who claimed that they are co -tenure holders together with petitioners. The petitioners also claimed that Smt. Basantia widow of Budhu had remarried and she is not having any share. The pedigree which is relevant for the purpose of present petition is as follows: - -

(2.) IN respect of objection filed by opposite parties Shobha, Ram Kishun, Jai Karan and Amrit Lal the Consolidation Officer relying upon the entry of 1334F, wherein Jokhai is recorded in occupancy tenancy while Hitkari is recorded as mortgagee, held that as Hitkari failed to prove separation in the family, therefore, his name came down as Agua Khandan, and therefore, Ram Gopal and Jag Mohan, who are brothers of Hitkari were also to be recorded and, therefore, Jai Karan, Vishwanath, Ram Kishun and Amrit Lal opposite parties are co -tenure holders with petitioners and Basantia. Aggrieved in respect of disputed Khata, petitioners preferred an appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the appeal. The petitioners went in revision in respect of disputed Khata which has also been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad.

(3.) THE other contention raised by learned counsel for petitioners also has equal force. Finding has been recorded that the name of Hitkari was recorded and the family was joint as separation has not been proved. This conclusion has been recorded by consolidation authorities without considering the evidence led before them. They have not assigned reasons as to how they have come to the said conclusions. Reasons are the link on the basis of which such a conclusion could be arrived. As the reasons have not been assigned for recording such a conclusion, the orders passed by consolidation authorities are unsustainable.