VISHAN LAL Vs. J.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata No. 54 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed khata'). Kalua, i.e., the father of the petitioner was recorded as the tenure holder of the disputed khata. It is the admitted case of the parties that Kalua was the original tenure holder of the disputed khata. During the consolidation operations in the village, respondent No. 2 filed objections claiming 1/2 share in the disputed khata alongwith the petitioner and on the said objections, Case No. 402 under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was registered before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'). The case of respondent No. 2 was that the petitioner and Kehari were the sons of Kalua and petitioner was the son of Kehari. On the basis of the aforesaid pedigree set up by him, respondent No. 2 claimed 1/2 share in the disputed khata. The petitioner contested the objections filed by respondent No. 2 and in his reply, the petitioner admitted that he and Kehari were the sons of Kalua, but stated that Kehari had died before Kalua and at the time of his death had one son named Tati Ram who died one year after the death of Kehari. In his reply, the petitioner further stated that after the death of Kehari, Mst. Dhupaniya who was the widow of Kehari, started living with one Chhote Lal as his wife and Chhote Lal was the father of respondent No. 2. On the basis of facts stated in his reply, the petitioner denied that respondent No. 2 had any share in the disputed khata. The parties produced witnesses to prove the pedigree as set up by them. It is also evident from the records that the voter list showing the respondent No. 2 to be the son of Chhote Lal and a copy of the Kutumb Register which showed the respondent No. 2 to be a part of the family of the petitioner were filed before the C.O. It is relevant to note that Mst. Dhupaniya was not produced as a witness by respondent No. 2 to prove that he was the son of Kehari.

(3.) The C.O. vide his order dated 1.5.1981 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 2 could not prove that he was the son of Kehari. Against the order dated 1.5.1981 passed by the C.O. dismissing Case No. 402, respondent No. 2 filed Appeal No. 744 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), which was also dismissed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 5.10.1981. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 filed Revision No. 846 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Joint Director Consolidation, Agra, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Joint Director'), which has been allowed by the Joint Director vide his order dated 10.5.1993. Through his aforesaid order, the Joint Director has held that respondent No. 2 was the son of Kehari and was therefore entitled to be recorded as a co-tenure holder in the disputed khata having 1/2 share in the same. The order dated 10.5.1993 passed by the Joint Director in Revision No. 846 has been challenged in the present writ petition.