SMT. KAILASI Vs. D.D.C. & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner and respondents are descendents of one Salik Singh. Salik Singh had two sons, namely, Beni Singh and Rambachan Singh. Respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of Beni Singh. Rambali and Vindhyachal were the sons of Rambachan Singh. Petitioner is the daughter of Rambali. The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata Nos. 57A, 155, 156 and 157. Rambali as well as respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 were recorded co-tenure holders of Plot No. 57A. However, respondent no. 6 was recorded as a sole tenure holder of Khata No. 155, respondent no. 4 was recorded as sole tenure holder of Khata No. 156 and respondent no. 5 was recorded as sole tenure holder of Khata No. 157 in the revenue records relating to the basic year. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village, Rambali filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') praying that he may be recorded a cotenure holder along with respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 in all the aforesaid khatas. On the aforesaid objections of Rambali, Case No. 187 to 191 of 1977-78 were registered in the court of Consolidation Officer, Sagri, District Azamgarh. The contention of Rambali in the aforesaid objections was that Salik Singh was the tenure holder of the plots included in the aforesaid khatas and respondents had been wrongly recorded as sole tenure holder in the respective khatas and Rambali, being a descendant of Salik Singh, was entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holder in the said khatas. The aforesaid objections filed by Rambali were contested by respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. However, it appears from the judgment dated 21.2.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer deciding the aforesaid case that during the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 4 appearing as a witness on behalf of himself and respondent nos. 5 and 6 testified that Salik Singh was not the tenure holder of plots in Khata Nos. 155, 156 and 157 but admitted that Rambali and the contesting respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 were the co-tenure holders of other khatas i.e. Khata Nos. 57A and 58 involved in the case. It is also apparent from the judgment of the Consolidation Officer that Salik Singh was the original tenure holder of Plot Nos. 232/2 (area 0.120), 133 (area 0.395) and 628/1 (area 0.296) and after his death, the parties who are descendants of Salik Singh, were in possession of their respective shares in the aforesaid plots. The Consolidation Officer vide his judgment and order dated 21.2.1978 allowed the objections filed by Rambali and directed that Rambali be recorded as a co-tenure holder in all the khatas having 1/2 share in the same except in relation to Plot Nos. 232, 133 and 628. Plot Nos. 232/2, 628/1 and 133 were excluded by the Consolidation Officer, as previously in his order, the Consolidation Officer had recorded a finding that the parties were in possession of their respective shares over the said plots. The order relating to Khata No. 57A was based on the admission of respondent no. 4 and the order relating to other plots in Khata Nos. 155, 156 and 157 were passed by the Consolidation Officer relying on the entries in the revenue record relating to 1362 Fasli. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.2.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner and respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 filed two separate appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which were numbered as Appeal Nos. 666 and 700. The appeal filed by the petitioner related to Plot Nos. 232/2, 133 and 628 while the appeal filed by respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 related to Khata Nos. 57A, 58, 155, 156 and 157. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his judgment and order dated 31.12.1986 allowed the appeal filed by respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 but dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed that respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 be recorded as sole tenure-holders of Plot Nos. 57A, 155, 156 and 157. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.1986 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh which was numbered as Revision No. 125 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his judgment and order dated 13.1.2004 dismissed the aforesaid revision on the ground that from the revenue records filed by the parties, it was evident that Salik Singh was a tenure holder of only Plot Nos. 232 and 593 but as the name of contesting respondents in the same were recorded on an area less than their share, therefore, it would not be reasonable to direct that the name of Rambali be also recorded as co-tenure holder of the said plots. The orders dated 21.2.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, 31.12.1986 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 13.1.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by rejecting the claim of Rambali on Plot Nos. 232 and 593 merely on the ground that the name of contesting respondents on the aforesaid plots were recorded on an area less than their share and therefore, it would not be reasonable to record Rambali as a co-tenure holder of the said plots and the said ground was not a relevant factor to reject the claim of Rambali. It has been further argued by counsel for the petitioner that during the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 4 had appeared as witness on behalf of contesting respondents and had admitted that Rambali was a co-tenure holder of Khata Nos. 57A and 58 and the Consolidation Officer relying on the aforesaid admission had passed the order dated 21.2.1978 directing that Rambali be recorded as co-tenure holder of Khata No. 57A and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have not considered the aforesaid admission of respondent no. 4 while passing their impugned orders dated 31.12.1986 and 13.1.2004. It has been further argued by counsel for the petitioner that Rambali and contesting respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 were recorded in the revenue records of 1362 Fasli relating to the disputed khatas and, therefore, were entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holders of the same and the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had wrongly rejected the claim of Rambali as raised in his objections filed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953.