Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) -By means of the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.2.1973, 1.10.1973 and 16.2.1974, passed by Consolidation Officer. Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation, respectively.
(2.) THE dispute pertains to Khata No. 35. In the basic year it was recorded in the name of petitioners and contesting respondent Nos. 5. An objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was filed by the contesting respondents claiming 2/3rd share in the khata in dispute. To appreciate the facts and the controversy involved in the case, it would be helpful to notice the following pedigree. Hulas Rai Zalim Singh Guru Sahai Sanehi Lal Shiv Sahai Lal X - Sarjoo Prasad Krishna Charan Anandi Prasad alias Bachi Lal X Raj Bahadur (R.4) Jang Bahadur (R.5) Rahas Bihari Raj Narain (P.1) Prem Narain (P.2) The contesting respondents claim 2/3rd share on the ground that Rahas Bihari pre-deceased Sarju Prasad, hence, his 1/3rd share was inherited by them being nearest reversioner. This claim of the contesting respondents was contested by the petitioners on the ground that after the death of Sarju Prasad an oral family settlement took place between the parties under which the share of Sarju Prasad was allotted to them, exclusively. The said family settlement was duly acknowledged by the parties in mutation proceedings by way of a compromise dated 13.4.1940. On the basis of the said compromise an order dated 31.12.1940, was passed by the mutation court which was given effect in the revenue record and the parties were put in possession over the respective shares, accordingly.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.2.1973, allowed the objection and held that contesting respondents were entitled to 2/3rd share in the khata in dispute. Appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. All the three consolidation courts have held the family settlement and order dated 22.12.1940, passed by mutation court is not binding on the parties on the ground that the family settlement was in variance with the lawful share of the parties and was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, apart from above, also did not accept the compromise filed before the mutation court on the ground that any consent or admission made during mutation proceedings have no relevance in regular title proceedings.;