BADLOO Vs. KANDHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision application filed by the Petitioner against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who allowed the appeal filed by the opposite parties and held that the name of Kandhai will also be entered as bhumidhar over one plot and will also get share in the same.

(2.) THE basic year entry was in favour of Petitioner No. 1 alone who, according to his case was recorded in the revenue papers in representative capacity for and on behalf of his brother as the tenancy rights devolved on him after the death of his father. Opposite party Kandhai on the one hand who was son of Sarju own brother of Ram Das father of Petitioner and Prabhu and others father of Sukkha the third brother of Ram Das claimed co -tenancy rights along with the Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioners who had no dispute among themselves contested the claim of Kandhai for 1/3 share and of three daughters of deceased Sukkha for the remaining 2/3 share. In support of his claim the parties tendered their oral and documentary evidence before the Consolidation Officer to whom the Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the matter for deciding the same. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections filed by the Petitioners and others and directed that the name of the Petitioners be entered. Kandhai filed an appeal and the Settlement Officer Consolidation partly allowed the appeal. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Petitioner No. 1 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and as according to him the other Petitioners were not available, they were impleaded as opposite parties in the revision application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision application. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) LASTLY , it was contended by the learned Counsel that as Ram Das acquired tenancy rights in individual capacity after the date of vesting, he alone was to be deemed to be Adhivasi and Sirdar of the land in suit and there was no question of confirmation of co -tenancy rights on any other member of the family. The learned Counsel in this connection made reference to khatauni of 1362 F. in which Ram Das was entered as Adhivasi and also for 1373 F. in which his name was entered as Adhivasi over plot No. 508. It: could not be denied that before Ram Das, the tenant of the plot in dispute was his father Baljor who had three sons Ram Das, Sarju and Sukkha. The Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that Khata No. 127 was acquired from the nucleus of a joint Hindu family property and the said Khata was acquired by Ram Das meaning thereby that the acquisition was made by himself and his brothers and his name was entered in the representative capacity and because he was entered in possession before abolition of Zamindari, thereafter Sirdari rights accrued in his favour only and could not have accrued in favour of any other person.