MAGGOO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Shri R. P. Ram for the petitioner and Shri Bimlendra Rai holding brief of Shri A. K. Rai for the contesting respondents.

(2.) DISPUTE relates to Plot No. 1073/1 area 0. 395 and 1095/1 area 0. 27 acres. In the basic year, the petitioner was recorded as sole sirdar of plots in dispute. During consolidation operations, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an objection claiming co-tenancy rights on the basis that the plots were an cestral acquisition and, hence, they are en titled to be recorded as cosirdar. The ob jection was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that one Bishwanath Singh was the sir-holder of the plots in dis pute and he settled the same with the peti tioner as sikmi tenant. It was pleaded that prior to the settlement with the petitioner, father of the petitioner, namely, Siri was the sikmi tenant, who was ejected and thereafter the said plots came to be settled with the petitioner. It was also pleaded that petitioner being sikmi of the sir, became adivasi and later on sirdar under section 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. In the alternative, it was pleaded that peti tioner being recorded as an occupant in 1356-F and being in actual cultivatory pos session in 1359-F, became adivasi.

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended that there is neither any evidence on record nor any finding has been recorded that Siri, fa ther of the parties were ever ejected from the land in dispute during his life time. It has further been pleaded that acquisition being by a common ancestor and the name of the petitioner came to be recorded in represen tative capacity, and as such, the contesting respondents have rightly been declared co-tenants along with the petitioner.