S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.9.1973 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition). There appears to be no dispute about the fact that in the basic year record die name of the petitioner was recorded. Objection was filed by the opposite party claiming co-tenancy rights in the land, which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation. On filing the revision by the opposite party the same was allowed and the claim of the revisionist was accepted. Against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed at the admission stage. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the petitioners to the Apex Court who by its judgment dated 28.1.1983 remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh decision of the writ petition on the merits. The Apex Court by its judgment referred above has made the following observation: "Prima facie, it would appear that for a period of 43 years the appellants or their ancestors have been in possession of that land. It would further appear, prima facie, that the rights of permanent tenure holders have been conferred upon the appellants under section 7 of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 19-19 as would seem from the Sanad dated December 20, 1949. If it be true that the appellants have acquired their Bhoomidari rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950, it would be difficult to hold that the respondents are entitled to the possession of the land as co-tenure holders." In view of the aforesaid now the matter is before this Court.
(3.) After hearing the Counsel for the parties at some length it appears that in view of certain factual aspects which emerges from record and findings given by the Courts below examination of the matter in detail may not be required and this petition can be disposed of on very short ground. There is no dispute about the fact that at one point of time in 1336 fasli predecessor of the petitioner namely Rure and predecessor of the respondents namely Rajjan were recorded with five years duration. Predecessor of both parties referred above were not having any thing common with each other as the petitioner side happens to be Gaderia Hindu by caste and the respondents side happens to be Moham-madan by caste. After 1336 fasli there is entry of 1349 fasli which is only in the name of Rure with the duration of 18 years and the rent of Rs. 86.2 aana, although the rent mentioned in 1336 fasli is Rs. 140/-. Thereafter entry of 1359 fasli comes which also shows the name of Rure alone with the duration of 28 years. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation after examining the evidence i.e. oral and documentary has recorded the following findings: "(i) After 1336 fasli Rajjan has died on 28.12.1930 and as the rent has also been changed, it appears that some fresh settlement has taken place with the predecessor of the petitioner. (ii) Petitioner's predecessor and thereafter the petitioner has been exclusively paying the land revenue for all this long time. (iii) Respondents have not taken any steps for recording of their names although after 1336 on the death of Rajjan their names was never recorded in the papers. (iv) Petitioner's predecessor after depositing required amount has obtained Bhumidhari Sanad exclusively in his name. (v) After the Sanad was obtained the petitioner side tried to sell the property upon which the dispute arose between the petitioner side and the respondents upon which they came to know about the fact that their names are not recorded but even then no steps have been taken to get their names entered.";