RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.R. Maurya, for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh for the respondents. Initially, the writ petition was heard on 28.10.2013 as a fresh case. On that day, the counsel for the petitioners argued that order of Consolidation Officer was ex parte. The petitioners were granted time to file their evidence, in order to prove the prejudice caused to them. Thereafter Supplementary Affidavits were filed on 06.11.2013 and 14.11.2013, annexing some papers. The counsel for the respondents filed Short Counter Affidavit and Supplementary Counter Affidavit and argued that evidence of the parties were already recorded up to the year 1990. After order of this Court, the petitioners engaged Sri Shoorvir Singh, Advocate on 04.08.2013 but at the time of hearing he walked out to the Court. The petitioners also filed Rejoinder Affidavit.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 04.10.2013 and Consolidation Officer dated 29.08.2012 and 04.10.2012, passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute relates to the land of khata 505 of village Naurangia, tappa Batesara, pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, district Kushi Nagar, which was recorded in basic consolidation year, in the names of Sukhal, Bihari, Vishuni, Kithuni, Tofa sons of Jamuna, Shyam Lal son of Sukai, Swami Nath son of Budhai, Jhapsi, Chokat, Bhagi sons of Sarju, Faujdar, Shankar, Buddhu and Suddhu sons of Ram Autar, Moti Chand, Mangal, Gore sons of Nanhku. Sighasan son of Nathai and Dukkhi son of Billar (respondents -3 and 4) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed an objection (registered as Case nos. 303 to 309) under Section 9 -A of the Act, for recording their names as co -tenure holders having 1/3 share, in the land in dispute. It has been stated by the respondents that the land in dispute was ancestral property of the parties and coming in the family from the time of common ancestor Bandhu. Bandhu was inherited by his three sons Ramesar, Sumesar and Parmesar alias Ram Lakhan. The respondents belong to the branch of Parmesar alias Ram Lakhan. After death of Parmesar, their names were not recorded over the land in dispute although they through out remained in joint possession of it. They filed a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951, for recording their names, but the suit was abated due to consolidation. There were some uncontested objections for recording the heirs of Vishuni and Faujdar. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 13.01.1984 rejected the objection of the respondents in default and determined share of other recorded tenure holders, on the basis of pedigree, amongst remaining persons.
(3.) THE respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 13.01.1984, which was allowed by order dated 08.02.1984 and order dated 13.01.1984 was recalled. Thereafter, Sukhal and the respondents filed a written compromise before Consolidation Officer on 14.03.1984, admitting the 1/3 share of the respondents, in the land in dispute. Jhapsi, Chokat, Shyam Lal and Swaminath and the respondents filed another written compromise before Consolidation Officer on 22.05.1985, admitting the 1/3 share of the respondents, in the land in dispute, which was verified by the Consolidation Officer on the same day. Other recorded tenure holders contested the objection of the respondents. The Consolidation Officer proceeded with the trial and examined the witnesses. Statement of Rajdev son of Gajadhar was recorded on 30.05.1984, Bhagi son of Sarju was recorded on 16.12.1984, Nathuni wife of Kauri was recorded on 26.06.1985, Kanhaiya son of Faujdar was recorded on 13.01.1987, Sighasan son of Nathai was recorded on 14.01.1999 and Dukkhi son of Billar was recorded on 24.01.1999. Thereafter the matter remained pending before the Consolidation Officer for a long time. The respondents filed Writ B No. 42669 of 2012, before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 18.05.2012, directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the case within stipulated time. Thereafter, the petitioners filed vakalatnama of Sri Shoorvir Singh, Advocate, on 04.08.2012. The Consolidation Officer, again issued notices to the parties on 08.08.2012 fixing 14.08.2012 for hearing/arguments. On date of arguments, counsel for the petitioners and other co -sharers abstained from the arguments. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the respondents, by order dated 29.08.2012, held that Sukhal filed written compromise before Consolidation Officer on 14.03.1984, admitting the pedigree given by the respondents, in their objection. The land in dispute was recorded in 1322 F in the names of Ramesar, Sumesar and Parmesar sons of Bandhu and the same plots came to be recorded in disputed khata 505 as such it was proved to be ancestral property. According to the pedigree the respondents have 1/3 share in it. On this finding the objection of the respondents was allowed by order dated 29.08.2012, their names were directed to be recorded over the land in dispute, holding their 1/3 share in it.;