JOKHNA Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION RAE BARELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who have held that a step mother is widowed mother (within the meaning of Section 171 of UP ZA and LR Act) and is entitled to -succeed to the property of her step -son. It is not in dispute that Ghirrau was the last male tenant cultivator of the disputed land about 15 years ago and after his death his son Shakoor inherited the property. The said Shakoor also died in 1973 leaving behind a widow and opposite party No. A Smt. Munni his step -mother who was the second wife of Ghirrau and had a son from her previous husband. Basic year entry was in the name of Shakoor and on publication of basic year records Petitioner and opposite party No. 4 filed objections for entering their names in the revenue records in place of Shakoor. The matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer who allowed the claim of the Petitioner and rejected that of opposite party No. 4 and directed that the Petitioner alone may be substituted as the Petitioner was the heir of Shakoor. Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer the opposite partly No. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who partly allowed the appeal and directed that in view of the provisions of Section 171 of UP ZA and LR Act both the widowed mother and step mother were entitled to succeed. As such the name of step mother of Shakoor which according to him was "widowed mother" was also to be mutated along with the Petitioner. Against the order passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the Petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who also adopted the very same view of law.

(2.) SRI P.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, challenged the orders passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that they had wrongly interpreted Section 171(b) of the Act inasmuch as they have wrongly held that widowed mother includes a step mother. The present case thus involves interpretation of Section 171(1)(b) writ reference to the Muslim family though Section 171(b) applies equally to Hindus and Muslims notwithstanding the fact that in personal law there is some difference so far as the position and status of step mother is concerned.

(3.) IN this view, the view of law taken by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation that the step mother is also a widowed mother is manifestly erroneous.