KANTA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) The dispute pertains to Gata No. 131/1 and 132/2 which in the basic year Khatauni is recorded in the name of Ram Dhani, who had no sons, therefore, the petitioner claims to be legal heir of his brother filed objection seeking correction. The respondent filed separate objection claiming to be recorded in the revenue record in respect of property of Ram Dhani. The consolidation courts upon considering the material and evidences led by the parties recorded a finding that admittedly, Ram Dhani died interestate and his name finds recorded in the basic year.

(3.) It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that since name of Shiv Nath, father of Ram Dhani and Vishwanath ancestor of petitioner was recorded in 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli as "Sikmi, therefore, it was urged that Vishwnath being brother would get half share belonging to Shiv Nath, consequently, the petitioner would inherit the property in dispute. The consolidation authorities did not find merit in the contention for the reason that the entry 'Sikmi' would mature into Adhiwasi/Sirdar and since Vishwanath was not recorded either as 'Sikmi' or 'Sirdar', therefore, the property in dispute would not devolve upon the petitioner. Shiv Nath was recorded as 'Sikmi' who had instituted a declaratory suit in 1957 under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act in respect of the property against Ram Dhani which was decreed as per compromise between the parties. In the said suit, Lal Bahadur was defendant and the decree was binding between the parties.