BECHU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute relates to khata no.106 of village Dasepur, which in the basic year was recorded in the name of descendants of a common ancestor Devi. Devi had three sons Sadhu, Badlu and Shivnandan. The dispute relates to share. Objections under Sec. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioner Bechu alleging that Ghurputtar son of Badlu had executed a will of his share in his favour. Another objection was filed by respondent no. 3 Hira Lal alleging that Sadlu son of Devi had sold his share to Hira Lal in 1924. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 3.1.1977 determined the share of Bechu in khata no.106 to be 1/15+1/5 = 2/15. He also determined the share of the other parties. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer an appeal was preferred by the respondent Phakkad alone before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal of Phakkad. He did not rely upon the will and held that the parties were entitled to a share according to the pedigree. He modified the share of the parties. The operative portion of the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, however, indicates that the petitioner Bechu has not been given any share in khata no.106. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.10.1977 two revisions were filed, one by Hira Lal and the other by the petitioner Bechu. Both the revisions have been dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation by the impugned order dated 13.10.1980. It appears that the petitioner filed a restoration application, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation by order dated 27.8.1983. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and of the Deputy Director Consolidation.

(2.) I have heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 Phakkad who has since been substituted by his heirs.

(3.) It was submitted by the petitioners' counsel that even if the will is not relied upon, the petitioner is entitled to a share on the basis of the pedigree and the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director Consolidation have not given any reason as to why the petitioner is not entitled to any share on the basis of pedigree when this was the ground, which was pressed by the petitioner in the revision. The copy of memorandum of revision has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure-4. A perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer indicates that the petitioner was given 2/15 share in khata no.106. The Settlement Officer Consolidation no doubt has allowed the appeal and has also recorded a finding that the parties are entitled to a share according to the pedigree but no reason has been given for not giving any share to him. The Deputy Director Consolidation has also not considered the matter from this aspect. The case is an old one and in the circumstances it is proper that the case be sent back for fresh decision to the Deputy Director Consolidation who shall decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any share on the basis of the pedigree.