RAM LAKHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, BARABANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) Shital and Badal were two brothers and there is no dispute in this regard. Badal died prior to Shital. This fact is also not in dispute. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that after the death of Badal his holdings devolved upon his brother Shital which was not put to challenge at any stage. In the consolidation proceedings which commenced in the year 1965, Ram Jiayee claiming herself to be the daughter of Shital filed objections under Sec. 9 before the Consolidation Officer. Bhairon Prasad, the then Pradhan of the village also filed objections under Sec. 9 claiming succession on the basis of a will said to have been executed by Shital on 26.4.1976. The Consolidation Officer accepted the objections of Ram Jiayee and rejected the objections of Bhairon Prasad.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the heirs of Bhairon Prasad filed an appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein the Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C.) upset the findings of the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) with regard to the entitlement of Ram Jiayee categorically holding therein that she was not the daughter of Shital, but was the daughter of Badal and therefore, being the niece she did not fall in the line of succession prescribed under Sec. 171 of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act. As regards the claim of Bhairon Prasad and his legal heirs which is based on the will, the SOC opined that the date of birth was not very clear, as the certified copy of the family register adduced in evidence by the appellants before him had been torn. Therefore, on this issue he remanded the matter back to the CO for a consideration afresh, albeit after setting aside his order dated 18.2.1986.