- (1.) HEARD Sri A.N.Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Although the list of old cases has been revised. None appears on behalf of the private respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.01.1974 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sarnath, District Varanasi in Case No. 170, 171 and 655 (Ram Ji Vs. Raj Narain) under Section 9 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as also the order dated 06.11.1975 passed in Appeal No. 104 (Smt. Rama Devi Vs. Raj Narain and others) alongwith connected appeals by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi and also the order dated 14.09.1976 passed in Revision No. 1754/930 (Raj Narain Vs. Smt. Rama Devi) and other connected Revision No. 1755/931 (Raj Narain Vs. Rama Devi and others) and Revision No. 1889/1053 (Rama Devi Vs. Raj Narain and others) by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Varanasi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the impugned orders, the objection filed by the respondent no.1, Smt. Rama Devi (now deceased substituted by her heirs and legal representatives) has been accepted and she has been held to be a co-sharer alongwith the petitioner in the property in question. According to him, Smt. Rama Devi was not daughter of Baij Nath and his wife Charitra but was belonging to another village and was daughter of Rajvant Pandey. He states that the objection of Smt. Rama Devi has been wrongly accepted by the Courts below and they have ignored the oral statement given by Smt. Rama Devi before the Consolidation Officer to the effect that daughter of Charitra was married with Vishwanath and when Vishwanath died that daughter went away and she is wife of Dubari. According to him the said admission made by the respondent no.1 was a clear indication that respondent no.1, Rama Devi was not belonging to the family of the petitioner. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, the pedigree of the parties has been given in paragraph 3 of the writ petition as also in the impugned order, wherein it appears that petitioner, Raj Narain is the son of Dhanushdhari where as Rama Devi claims to be the daughter of Baijnath and Smt. Charitra. Baijnath and Dhanushdhari were brother and come from the common ancestor Ram Narain. The Consolidation Officer while deciding the dispute relating to Khata No. 11 and Khata No. 22 of Village Gopalpur had framed the issues and while deciding the claim of Smt. Rama Devi as co-sharer of plot in dispute, he has found that the petitioner, Raj Narain has not filed any objection against the claim of Smt. Rama Devi and has not said anywhere that Smt. Rama Devi is not the daughter of Smt. Charitra. He has considered the oral statement made by Smt. Ram Devi and has found that Baij Nath and Smt. Charitra had one daughter by the name of Rama Devi who was married to Vishwanath and after the death of Vishwanath his younger brother Dubari was married to Rama Devi. The Consolidation Officer has further found that the petitioner filed no evidence whatsoever to show that the respondent no.1, Smt. Rama Devi is the daughter of Rajvant Pandey who is a resident of another village Karampur, whereas in the oral evidence submitted by the petitioner, it only came out that Smt. Rama Devi use to go to village Karampur which fact did not prove that she was daughter of Rajvant Pandey. The Consolidation Officer has therefore, allowed the objection of Smt. Rama Devi daughter of Baijnath and directed the name of Smt. Charitra to be entered in the revenue record having 1/16 share. He has rejected the objection of Raj Narain.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer while deciding the dispute relating to Khata No. 59, 6 and 8 of village Barji rejected the objection of Rama Devi and determined the shares of Raj Narain, Ghurahu, Ram Naresh, Bala Prasad, Vinayak and Bechan in view of succession in accordance with the pedigree. He decided the issue as to whether Rama Devi is heir of Smt. Charitra from Baijnath and held against her. Three appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, two by Rama Devi and the third by Raj Narain. All the appeals were decided together vide order dated 06.11.1975 wherein the Appeal No. 104 of Rama Devi was allowed and she was held to be daughter of Charitra. The appeal of Raj Narain was rejected. The other Appeal No. 790 of Rama Devi was also rejected. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer insofar as other Khata's were concerned but has allowed the appeal of Rama Devi for Khata's No. 59 and Khata No. 8. Three Revisions were filed before the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Two by Raj Narain and one by Rama Devi. The Deputy Director, Consolidation partly allowed one appeal of Raj Narain and allowed the appeal of Rama Devi. He modified the shares of the parties as under;- Village Gopapur : Khata No. 11 and Khata No. 22 Village Barji:- Khata No. 6:- Rama Devi 1/96 share Raj Narain 7/32 share Ghurahu 7/48 share Kalp Nath 7/48 share Om Prakash 7/48 share Ram Vilas 7/48 share Chand 7/48 share Ram Ugrah 5/24 share Ramji 5/24 share Village Barji:- Khata No. 8:- Rama Devi 1/2 share Raj Narain 1/4 share Satya Narayan Jai Narayan 1/3 share Ram Raj Bacha Village Barji: Khata No. 59 Rama Devi 1/2 share Raj Narain 1/2 share ;