- (1.) THE petitioners disputing the pedigree set up by the contesting respondent contend that the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are not in accordance with law and that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside declaring the shares of the petitioners as claimed by them.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act where the claim of shares was agitated by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer. In the first round of litigation the matter travelled up to the High Court by means of a Writ Petition No. 6260 of 1975. The writ petition was allowed partly to the extent indicated therein and the operative part of the judgment whereby remand was ordered is reproduced herein below; I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The order which was passed on compromise by Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 23rd August, 1972 was challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation set-aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter for determining the share of parties. When the matter was being remanded, the question as to what share will be given to respondent no.4 is also involved. The fact as to what share will be given to respondent no.4 is dependent on fact that respondent no.4 is son of Chhitar or Shiv Singh. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has directed both the parties to lead evidence, when the parties were being given opportunity to lead evidence this question ought to have open while determining the evidence. The parentage of respondent no.4 has relevance while determining the share of respondent no.4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the revision has not adversed to aforesaid aspect of the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has more adverted to the fact that there is no error in the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in remanding the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has affirmed the order of remand. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has correctly taken the view that there was no infirmity in the order of remand by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. However, the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in so far as it directed that question of parentage shall be close d cannot be sustained. In view of the foregoing discussions, the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 25th July, 1974 in so far as it directs that no evidence be taken on the question of parentage of Ram Phal set aside. It is made clear that after remand the question of parentage will also be decided in accordance with law on the basis of evidence. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the question of parentage of Ram Phal and it is for the Consolidation Officer to decide the said question on the basis of evidence on the record. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The issue which was contested was the parentage of Ramphal the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. The petitioners contended that Ramhal was the son of Shiv Singh and for the said purpose they relied on a pedigree which has been reproduced by them in the memo of the revision and is quoted herein below; Ishriya Chinta Keval Kishan Chhitar Shyur Singh Ganga Sahai Smt.Chandniya Smt.Chandniya Umrao Jwala Sarjeet Shobha Ramphal Tikaram Ram Chandra Jagat Amrit Hemraj Balraj Nanak Ghansham Smt. Barfi Devi (wife) Sheeram Vishamvar Ashok Sarbhom Sunit Pintu The said pedigree was contested by the respondents and the parentage of Ramphal was asserted as Chhitar. The pedigree as relied on by the respondents is reproduced herein below ; Ishriya Chinta Kishan Keval Chittar Shivsingh Urf Sher Singh Ganga Sahai Sarjeet Umrao Jawala Teeka Shobha Ramphal Ramchandra Jagat Imrat Hemraj Balraj Smt. Bharto Vishambhar Ashok , Shaurtham Sheeshram (w/o Ramchandra) Sunit Pissu Smt. Brahmadevi (w/o Sheeshram ) It is for this reason that the High Court while remanding the matter on 29.7.2003 had made it open that the Consolidation Officer shall review this aspect of the matter. The Consolidation Officer on 7.1.2006 decided the case against the petitioners, against which they filed an appeal and the Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the same on 12.5.2007.A revision against the same also met the same fate which was dismissed on 25.8.2007. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) SRI Faujdar Rai learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the order of remand of the High Court in the year 2003 the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the order dated 25.7.1974 had recorded that Shobha the predecessor in interest of the contesting respondent had admitted that Ramphal was the son of Shiv Singh. He has invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 25.7.74 to that effect. SRI Rai submits that the said evidence was on record when the matter was remanded by the High Court in the year 2003. The same requires a consideration which has not been done. Hence the impugned orders are vitiated. In short his submission is that a relevant piece of evidence having been ignored the impugned orders are vitiated as the said admission directly reflects on the issue that had to be decided. He further submits that admission is the best piece of evidence and the same could not have been ignored by the Consolidation Officer. Sri N.C.Rajvanshi learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the aforesaid statement being relied upon is on the basis of alleged compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The said order of compromise has been set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation himself in the order dated 25.7.74 and as such the said evidence and the compromise have no bearing on the issue at all. He submits that Shiv Singh died during the litigation and there was overwhelming documentary evidence that has been discussed by all the three courts below to conclude that Ramphal was the son of Chittar. He therefore submits that the finding on facts have been arrived at by the authorities on the basis of material on record and the admission as alleged stands diluted as the compromise order itself has been set aside.;