BALLI Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.B. Khare, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri B.N. Asthana learned counsel for the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners has submitted that in the objection filed by petitioners under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the Consolidation Officer had allowed the objection on 09.07.1976 but on an appeal filed by the respondents the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has set aside the order of Consolidation Officer and allowed the appeal. The Deputy Director, Consolidation in the revision filed by the petitioners has affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

(3.) SRI Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5 has submitted that the proceedings under Section 49/59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act had abated due to enforcement of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, the order dated 20.11.1952 could not be resjudicata between the parties for the reason that the suit was dismissed due to non-filing of evidence by the respondents regarding their shares in the property in question. He states that the ancestor of the respondents, namely, Bhuri alias Bira were recorded in 1334 F over the land in question and the pedigree submitted before the Consolidation Officer has not been disputed by the petitioners.