CHANDRA KANT PATHAK Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against two concurrent orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, Varanasi East and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Varanasi, accepting the claim of original respondent no.4, Saraju son of Mandil, now represented by his heirs and legal representatives, respondent nos.4/1, 4/2/1, 4/2/2, 4/2/3, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5 and 4/6, to the inheritance of Khata nos.229 and 302 of Village Tendui as well as Chak no.159 of Village Kotila, Pargana Kaswarraja, District Varanasi, both of which were originally recorded in the name of the late Ram Narain Pathak son of Mandil. The petitioner, Chandra Kant Pathak, who claims to be the son of the late Ram Narain Pathak, filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') saying that he is the only son and legal heir of the late Ram Narain, and is entitled to inherit his property, hereinbefore detailed (for short the ''property in dispute'). Respondent no.4 filed objections to the effect that the petitioner is not the son of the late Ram Narain, but a son of another brother, Shyam Narain, who is not entitled to inherit in the presence of the petitioner, going by the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, as in force at the relevant time. The Consolidation Officer decided both the objections filed by the petitioner and the late Saraju son of Mandil, together by a common judgment and order dated 18.11.1979. The objections of the petitioner were allowed, and those of respondent no.4, Saraju, were rejected, ordering that the name of the petitioner be recorded over the property in dispute, in place of the late Ram Narain. Aggrieved, respondent no.4, Saraju filed an Appeal to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, being Appeal no.1064, under Section 11(1) of the Act, which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 05.03.1983, setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, with a remand of the matter to the Consolidation Officer, to determine the question of parentage of the petitioner afresh after considering the evidence on record. Respondent no.4, dissatisfied with this order of remand, went up in Revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi East vide Revision no.48, under Section 48 of the Act. The petitioner too, carried a Revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation from the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It was numbered as Revision no.266. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, by his judgment and order dated 23.01.1984, has allowed the Revision preferred by respondent no.4 and set aside the orders of both Authorities below, reversed these orders, and directed that the name of Saraju, respondent no.4, be recorded in place of the deceased, Ram Narain, as his heir and legal representative, over the land in dispute. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Aggrieved, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) The following pedigree of parties has been set up before the Authorities below: