KALLOO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pres ent writ petition arises out of proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. THE dispute relates to khata No. 484. THE said khata, in the basic year, was recorded in the names of the petitioner and respon dent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Kalloo, Mohd. Islam, Mohd. Husain and Bhola. THE respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mohd. Islam and Mohd. Husain sons of Sattar filed objections on the pleas inter alia that the name of the peti tioner is wrongly recorded over the said khata. THEy along with respondent No. 4 Bhola son of Usman Gani are co-tenure holders of the same. THE case set up by them was that the plots comprised in the said khata were acquired by Lala common ancestor of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and after death of Lala it was inherited by his sons namely Usman Gani father of respon dent No. 4 and Sattar father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Usman Gani and Sattar came in occupation of the same after the death of their father Lala. THEy claimed that they have 1/2 share while Bhola respondent No. 4 has got another 1/2 share. A reply to the objections was filed by the petitioner on the pleas inter alia that the plots were acquired by common ancestor of the parties i.e. Maula and after his death his sons Lala and Hausildar succeeded. Thus, the branch of Lala has 1/2 share and the petitioner who is son of Hausildar has got another 1/2 share. It was stated that in the revenue rec ord, due to mistake of Patwari, for a certain duration, name of Usman Gani was re corded exclusively. THEre was in case, be ing revenue case No. 48 between the par ties which was decided on 7.9.1966 in terms of -the compromise wherein Bhola son of Usman Gani admitted that Kalloo has got 1/2 share and the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have jointly got 1/2 share. In pursuance of the said admission made by Bhola, the names of contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that of the petitioner were recorded. It was also pleaded that the claim as set up by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their objections that the petitioner has got no share in the said property is barred by time. A prayer was made that the name of the petitioner be recorded to the extent of 1/2 share and the objections of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be dismissed.

(2.) THE Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well by their orders dated 15.11.1972 and 19.12.1972 respectively dismissed the ob jections of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. THE said orders have been modified in revision by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has held that the petitioner has got 1/3 share instead of 1/2 share.

(3.) CONSIDERED the aforesaid submis sions of the learned Counsel for the peti tioner.