- (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.01.1974 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sirsa and the order dated 07.04.1975 passed in Appeal No. 1286, by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Meja, District Allahabad as also the order dated 18.10.1976 passed in Revision No.547/468, by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Camp at Allahabad. By the impugned orders, the consolidation authorities have determined the shares of the parties over the plots in question.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the said orders on the ground that initially the plots in question were recorded in the name of common ancestor Angad Singh in 1308 F - 1309 F, but subsequently a mortgage was made by one of the sharers to another share holder, namely, Girivar Singh and Girivar Singh came to be recorded in 1334 F. The petitioners, who are the heirs of Girivar Singh came into possession in 1353 F in a different capacity and therefore, their possession is not as a continuation of possession as a co-sharer, but it is in their own independent right. The other ground is that in 1358 F, the opposite parties are not recorded in the Khatauni and therefore, there was no presumption regarding jointness of the family over the plots in question.
(3.) Placing reliance on the cases Hira Lal and another Vs. Gajjan and others, 1990 RevDec 75, Gajjan Vs. Hira Lal and others,1982 RevDec 9, Sniveshwar Prasad Narain Singh and another Vs. Gharahu and another,1979 RevDec 26, Lala Nanak Chand Vs. Board of Revenue and others,1959 RevDec 165 and Ram Avadh and others Vs. Ram Das and others, 2009 106 RevDec 625, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the date of vesting the possession shown in the Khasra, is material and the occupant becomes adhivasi and subsequently a sirdar. He submits that under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'), the rights of the petitioners had matured by being given benefit of Section 20 of the Act and hence, the consolidation authorities have committed an error in non-suiting the petitioners by allowing the objection of the private party respondents.;