KALPANATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 23 rd September, 1983, holding Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, to be the sole bhurnidhar of the Khatas in dispute.

(2.) FOR appreciating the facts of the case, the admitted pedigree given below would be relevant :- Dhiraj ______________l______________ I I I I Baran Raghoo Banga Nanga II II. Sarvajeet Kuldeep Sri Nath Smt. Budhia I Smt. Phulrasani

(3.) THE Consolidation Officer held that the partition deed, dated 20-10-1947 set up by Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, in support of her claim was never acted upon between the parties and hence dismissed the objection filed by Smt. Phulrasani allotting shares to both the parties in accordance with the admitted pedigree set up in the case. However, in respect of Khata no. 842, the name of Kuldeep, the petitioner's father, was ordered to be expunged and hence both the parties filed appeals before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who partly allowed the appeal of Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3 and upheld the shares of the parties on the basis of the pedigree holding that the partition deed, dated 20-10-1947, was not acted upon. Thus the claim of respondent no. 3 on the basis of the said partition deed was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Feeling aggrieved, both the parties went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who, however, on appraisal of the evidence on record, held that the partion deed, dated 20-10 1947 was acted upon between the parties and since the signatures on this family partition deed by Kuldeep and others had never been denied by them, nor they at any point of time filed any suit for cancellation of this deed, hence the parties are bonnd by the partition deed executed by them which was acted upon and thus allowed the revision filed by Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, holding her to be sole tenure-holder of the khatas in dispute and dimissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court.