BISHWANATH RAI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the basic year Smt. Patia was recorded as the tenant-in-chief and Mangala father of the petitioners was recorded in possession. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioners. The petitioners' case was that Smt. Patia died in the year 1942 and that Mangala was the occupant recorded in 1356 F, 1359 F and later on he became Sirdar of the disputed land. The case was contested. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director Consolidation have rejected the petitioners claim. In support of the petitioners case that Smt. Patia died in the year 1942 the petitioners filed the extract of the death register in which the date of her death is shown as 25.4.1942. She also filed a certificate of the Pradhan who certified that Smt. Patia had died 36 years back. The Deputy Director Consolidation has considered these papers. It was found that there is nothing in the death certificate, to disclose that the certificate relates to the very Patia whose property is in dispute. As regard the Pradhan's certificate it was found by the Deputy Director Consolidation that he has no right to issue such a certificate. The Deputy Director Consolidation relied upon an order dated 9.1.1957 passed by the Pargana Adhikari in which the name of Smt. Patia was directed to be entered as tenant-in-chief and that of Mangala father of the petitioners as asami. He also relied upon the admission made by Ram Adhar witness of the petitioners that Smt. Patia had died about ten years back. On the basis of this material the Deputy Director Consolidation recorded a finding of fact that the petitioners' case that Smt. Patia died in the year 1942 was not proved and that she died much later. The finding is supported by the evidence and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, which may call for interference in writ jurisdiction. Smt. Patia died after the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in view of the admission of Ram Adhar and the order of the Pargana Adhikari dated 9.1.1957 also. It has also been found by the Deputy Director Consolidation that the possession of Mangala was not unauthorized. The S.D.O. in his order dated 9.1.1957 has also directed Mangala to be recorded as asami.

(2.) The question is what would be the status of Mangala or of the petitioners on the death of Smt. Patia Section 189 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides for extinction of the interest of bhumidhar with transferable rights. Section 190 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides for extinction of the interest of bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. In either case the interest of bhumidhar in a holding shall be extinct when he dies leaving no heirs entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of the Act. One Patingan had claimed to be the heir of Smt. Patia but his case was not found proved.

(3.) Section 191 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that the extinction of the interest of bhumidhar shall operate to extinguish the interest of any asami holding under him. The result, therefore, is that the petitioners have no right over the disputed land. Their objections have rightly been rejected by the courts below. Dismissed.