A.P.SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.D. Mandhayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THIS petition has come up with a chequered history of litigation between the mother of the petitioner Smt. Budhho and the predecessor of the respondents no. 4, 5 and 7, Dal Singh. The dispute is in relation to the agricultural holdings which are said to have been inherited from the branch of one Visham from the pedigree that is admitted between the parties and is gainfully reproduced hereinunder: Kana Sevla Megha Bambu (Issueless) Hukmi Visham Sukhdeo Baldeo (Issueless) Chuttan Raghubir Chandi Smt. Buddhho (Issueless) (Issueless) (Issueless) (Married Daughter) Dhani Ram (Petitioner) Dal Singh Daulat Khem Chand Prem Chand Bhawar Singh A perusal of the said pedigree would demonstrate that Smt. Buddhho is the married sister of Raghubir and Chandi, the two sons of Visham. Smt. Buddhho claims that she ought to have been continued and recorded as tenure holder to the extent of her property, having succeeded from Visham, in terms of the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act') as she was entitled to inherit the same.
(3.) THE contesting respondents are the sons of Dal Singh, who is a collateral, and whose status is categorically stated in the pedigree reproduced herein above. In the event Smt. Buddhho does not succeed to the said holdings, then the contesting respondents inherit the entire share of Visham. It is this contest which took the shape of a litigation way back in the year 1963 when Smt. Buddhho filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The said suit was decreed and an appeal was filed against the same. During the pendency of the appeal consolidation operations intervened and the proceedings abated, whereafter objections were filed by Smt. Buddhho under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. This objection was contested, and without tracing the intervening history of the litigation, which also includes a remand, the matter came to be ultimately decided by the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 2.8.1977. Two appeals were filed, one by the mother of the petitioner and the other by the contesting respondents. The former's appeal failed and the latter's succeeded. The matter was remanded by the revising authority, vide order dated 20.03.1982 whereafter the matter went back in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the appellate authority decided the matter on 20th June, 1987. By this order, the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected the claim of the petitioner Dhani Ram and held that the petitioner, who is the son of Smt. Buddhho, has been unable to prove his title as claimed by his mother. A revision was filed which has also been dismissed, vide order dated 11.10.1988 against which the present writ petition has been instituted.;