MALKUS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of two objections, one being filed by petitioners Rajendra Prasad. Chunkawan and Shyam Lal while other by Ganga and Malku son of Bodhi, Rajju son of Sheodarshan. In both the objections, it was prayed that the name of respondent No. 2 Rant is farzi and. therefore, her name be deleted. The objections were contested by Smt. Rani. She claimed that she being daughter of Ram Gopal, the husband of last tenure -holder, her name is rightly recorded over disputed Khata. The petitioners disputed Smt. Rani's parentage also. They claimed that Smt. Rani is not daughter of Ram Gopal. As Consolidation Authorities finally held Smt. Rani to be daughter of Ram Gopal, the pedigree on the basis of which this petition has been contested stands settled as follows :

(2.) THE main dispute between parties in this petition is as to whether Ram Gopal pre -deceased Chittu? There is no dispute between parties that Smt. Vadi was last tenure -holder on whose death succession opened under Section 172 read with Section 171 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short 'Act'). According to petitioners, Ram Gopal pre -deceased Chittu and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi, the succession has to be determined through last male tenure -holder Chittu while Smt, Rani claimed that Chittu predeceased his son Ram Gopal and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi. she (Smt. Rani) succeeded as Ram Gopal's daughter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that Chittu pre -deceased Ram Gopal and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional power could not have interfered in finding of fact recorded by authorities subordinate to him. He contended that if the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the opinion that findings of fact are to be recorded afresh in view of additional evidence led before him, then the only course open to him was to remand the matter to Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation to reconsider the case of parties in the light of additional evidence held in the case. He contended that the Supreme Court of India has led in the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others., 1994 Su 2 SCC 198, that a Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not have power to record finding of fact after re -appreciating the evidence.