SAHDEO AND ANOTHER Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, VARANASI AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1980-9-67
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 05,1980

Sahdeo And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Varanasi At Allahabad And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KAMTA MISRA V. G. P. DUBEY [REFERRED TO]
RAM GARIB V. BHAGWATI DIN [REFERRED TO]
BITHAL DAS KHANNA V. SRI NATH DAS KHANNA [REFERRED TO]
HAKIM ALI AND ANR. VS. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MANI RAJ VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEORIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-381] [REFERRED TO]
MAM RAJ VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEORIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-377] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.D.Agarwal, J. - (1.)The present petition under I Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the decision of the consolidation authorities under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The decision rendered by the authorities is in respect of Khata Nos. 82 and 203 (except 11 plots area 9 Bighas 3 Biswas and 10 Dhoors which have been held to be exclusively of the petitioners) of village Lohandi, Khata Nos. 53 and 112 of village Majhiyari and half share in consolidation khata No. 52 of village Majhiyari.
(2.)In the basic consolidation records, the names of the petitioners were recorded as tenure-holders of Khata Nos. 82 and 203 of village Lohandi and Khata Nos. 53 and 112 of village Majhiyari while the names of the petitioners together with Raj Narain and another were recorded as tenure-holders of Khata No. 52. The opposite parties Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) filed objection under Sec. 9-A of the Act claiming themselves to be the daughters of one Ram Prasad who is alleged to have had half share in khata No. 82 of village Lohandi. The case further was that on the death of Ram Prasad, his widow Smt. Bodari inherited the property and after the death of Smt. Bodari, the opposite parties were in possession as co-tenure-holders and their names ought to have been entered in the records who were wrongly omitted to be so entered and a similar objection in respect of Khata No. 203 of village Lohandi was also filed by the opposite parties. Three further objections were filed in respect of three Khatas of village Majhiyari.
(3.)The dispute thus relates to five Khatas in which the names of the petitioners were entered in the basic year.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.