- (1.) HEARD Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.2013 and Consolidation Officer dated 31.12.1999 passed in title proceedings under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute relates to the land of khata 268 of village Nakalai, tappa Nagwa Teekar, pargana Silhat, district Deoria. In basic consolidation records, the land in dispute was recorded in the names of Tirth Raj, Brij Raj, Abhi Raj and Darbari sons of Ram Dhari. The petitioner filed an objection claiming co - tenancy of 1/2 share in the khata in dispute on the ground that land in dispute was joint family property of Dashrath and Gokul. However, due to mistake of lekhpal, name of Gokul was alone recorded over it in representative capacity as such after his death, names of his branch alone recorded over it although both the branch through out remained in joint possession over it. The objection of the petitioner was contested by the respondents on the ground that the land in dispute was self acquired property of Gokul and was inherited by his son Ram Dhari and thereafter by the contesting respondents and the petitioner has no share in it. There were some other objections between the respondents also. Both the parties adduced their documentary as well as oral evidence before Consolidation Officer. The petitioner, apart from documentary evidence examined Raj Pati and Ram Autar as witnesses. The petitioner filed an extract of khatauni 1323F, in which name of Dashrath son of Shiv Nandan was noted as joint owner, in remark column by order dated 22.04.1915. A part from this document there is no other document in which the name of branch of the petitioner was recorded in the khatauni. The respondents examined Abhi Raj, Mustaq Ahmad and Khelari as their witnesses. They also filed extract of khatauni 1323 F, 1333 F, 1359 F, 1362 F and 1378 F, showing that the land in dispute was exclusively recorded in the name of Gokul and his descendents as hereditary tenancy. The Consolidation Officer, by the order dated 31.12.2009 found that the land in dispute was hereditary tenancy of Gokul and there is no evidence to show that it was ever recorded in the name of Shiv Nandan, the common ancestor. Apart from the endorsement of remark column in 1323 F there is no any other document to support the claim of the petitioner. As such it was held that the land in dispute was exclusive property of Gokul and Dashrath or his descendants have no share in it.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. In appeal the petitioner has filed an affidavit of Darbari son of Ram Dhari, admitting the claim of the petitioner. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation who by order dated 20.04.2006 held that as from the khatauni 1359 F it is proved name of both the branches were jointly recorded in other khata as such the family of Gokul and Dashrath were joint family. Relying upon the endorsement in the remark column of khatauni 1323 F it was held that land in khata in dispute was also joint family property accordingly the petitioner was declared co -sharer of half share in the land in dispute. The respondents filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31.10.2013 and the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside. Deputy Director of Consolidation summoned original khatauni of 1323 F, in which there was no endorsement in remark column as such extract of khatauni produced by the petitioner was held as forged document. He further found that even in khatauni 1292 F, name of Gokul alone was recorded. There is no evidence that the property in dispute was over recorded in the name of Shiv Nandan as such the petitioner could not prove that the property in dispute was either inherited from common ancestor or it was jointly acquired by Gokul and Dashrath. On this finding the revision was allowed and the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was set aside. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;