Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 26.11.1973 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, in Revision No. 120, Ram Bali and Ors. v. Dhanai and others whereby the revision filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had been allowed and after setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer, the objections filed by the Petitioners under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been rejected. The dispute relates to Plot No. 101 and 146 situate in Village Kazipur, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil Kunda, district Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the plots in dispute).
(2.) IN the basic year plots in dispute were recorded in the names of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The Petitioners filed their objections claiming co -tenancy rights to the extent of 1/3rd share in the plots in dispute on the ground that the land in dispute was ancestral property; it was recorded in the name of Ram Harakh in representative capacity and as such he had no right to alienate the same in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 contested the objections on the ground that the land in dispute was not ancestral and had been acquired by Ram Harakh and he had full rights to transfer the same in favour of the Respondents 4 to 6. It was further mentioned by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 that Ram Harakh was not the son of Bhunai. Small pedigree relevant for deciding the dispute as given by the Petitioners is as follows, Bhunai ______________________I________________________ I I I Ram Harakh Gomti Payag ______I______ ____________I_____________ I I I I I Dhanai Gajadhar Ram Bali Mata Prasad Ram Nath
(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence, both oral and documentary. In the documentary evidence the plaint, written statement and the evidence of a suit under Section 229 B of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was filed by the Petitioners. The said suit had abated on the ground of commencement of the consolidation proceedings. The Consolidation Officer relied heavily upon the statement of Ram Harakh recorded before the Judicial Officer in which although he had denied that the land in dispute was ancestral and also it was stated that he was not the son of Bhunai but had admitted that Petitioners were in possession of the part of the area of plot Nos. 101 and 146. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment dated 30.12.1972 held that the land in dispute was ancestral and that Petitioners will have 1/3rd share over the same. Appeal filed by the Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 17.7.1973 basically relying upon the same material as had been relied upon by the Consolidation Officer. Respondents 4 to 6 filed revision under Section 48 of the Act which has been allowed and after setting aside the orders of both the courts below, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment dated 26.11.1973 dismissed the objections filed by the Petitioners and maintained the basic year entries. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the statement of Ram Harakh which was heavily relied upon by the courts below and according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ram Harakh had specifically denied that the plots in dispute were coming down from the common ancestors; further that he was not the son of Bhunai; that he had himself acquired both the plots but at different points of time and his name had been accordingly incorporated; further that the land in dispute was never recorded in the name of Bhunai. Ram Harakh had however admitted that over a part of one of the two plots the Petitioners were in possession and further had constructed house over a part of the other plot. According to the Deputy Director of Consolidation mere statement of Ram Harakh that Petitioners were in possession over a part of the two plots would not make the land in dispute ancestral nor can it be inferred from the said statement that Ram Harakh had been recorded in the representative capacity, as Karta of the family. Further the Deputy Director of Consolidation also recorded that the Petitioners had not been able to show as to how the plots in dispute were ancestral. Plots in dispute were never recorded as Bhumidhari in the name of the alleged common ancestor of the Petitioners and the Respondents 4 to 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further recorded that just one receipt of land revenue which is said to have been paid by Bhunai, and not by the Petitioners, also goes to show that Bhunai may have paid the land revenue on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.;