SANJAY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. E. Khan, who has argued at length and vehemently, in support of his client i.e. petitioner, as also counsel for the opposite parties Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, whose vakalatnama is taken on record.

(2.) After the matter was remanded back by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2017 passed in writ petition No.150 (Cons.) of 1983, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has re-considered the matter and has again allowed the revision of private opposite parties setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

(3.) The revisional court has appreciated the revenue records and based thereon has recorded its finding that the land in question was recorded in the name of common ancestor Balai and it continued to be recorded in his name at least till 1346 Falsi when Oudh Rent Act, 1986 had come to an end and U.P,. Tenancy Act, 1939 came into force under which tenancy was heritable unlike the Act of 1986 under which it was not heritable. Consolidation Officer had also considered this aspect of the matter. Pointed query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the effect of Oudh Rent Act and the tenancy not being heritable could be to his advantage, if the land bearing gata No.s 6063, 6064 and 6065 was recorded in the name of common ancestor Balai in 1346 Fasali (1939), as, by that time U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 had come into force, he could not give a satisfactory reply to the same except to say that the land had been acquired by Dhannu. However, on being asked as to how and when the land was acquired by Dhannu son of Balai again no satisfactory reply could be submitted based on the material on record.