RUCHHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Dispute in the present writ petition relates to Khata No. 6 which was recorded in the name of Raghunandan, Raghubir and Brijnandan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.

(2.) ADMITTED pedigree of the parties to the dispute is as under : Gajadhar Parmeshwar Rameshwar Phuni Omprakas Mahendra Nagendra Raghubir Raghunandan Brijnandan Chandi Prabhu Sargun Jant Jata

(3.) SRI H. O. K. SRIvastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged that the view taken by all the three consolidation authorities that even though the khata in dispute was recorded in the name of petitioners' branch but since the family was in state of jointness as such contesting respondents are entitled to co-tenancy rights to the extent of half share is erroneous in law. It has further been urged that there being no revenue entries to demonstrate that khata in dispute ever recorded in the name of common ancestor, the claim of the contesting respondent of co-tenancy was liable to be dismissed. It has further been pointed out that even though Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation both found that identity of land in dispute had changed and it has not come down in identical form even then consolidation authorities wrongly and illegally gave co-tenancy rights to the contesting respondents.