HONBLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Singh, for the petitioners and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 27.06.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.02.2014, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The dispute relates to the land of khata 100 of village Rasoolabad alias Koilha, pargana Chayal, district Kaushambi, which was recorded in basic consolidation record in the name of Jokhu son of Babu. The names of Rampal, Prempal sons of Mahavir, Rajaram, Ganpat and Jagpat sons of Bhola were mutated as the heirs Jokhu in the proceedings under Section 6 -A of the Act by order dated 27.12.2007. Thereafter, by the order dated 27.01.2011 passed in Case No. 921, under Section 9 -A of the Act, shares of the aforesaid persons were separated. Sukhram, Bhudhram sons of Madhav and Amrit Lal son of Ram Autar (respondents -3 to 5) (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 2056) under Section 9 -A of the Act, claiming co -tenancy of 1/2 share together, on 14.12.2011. The respondents also filed an application dated 13.06.2012 for recall of the order dated 27.01.2011, which was allowed on 09.08.2012. Thereafter both the cases were consolidated together. It has been stated by the petitioners that the land in dispute was self acquired property of Jokhu. Jokhu was inherited by his two sons namely Mahavir and Bhola. Rampal and Prempal are sons of Mahavir. Rajaram, Ganpat and Jagpat are sons of Bhola. The respondents did not claimed co -tenancy in previous consolidation, as such, their right, if any, is barred under Section 49 of the Act. The respondents took the case that land in dispute was jointly acquired by Jokhu and Jakhi sons of Babu. The name of Jokhu was recorded in the representative capacity. Both the branches remained in joint possession over the property in dispute through out. The respondents belonged to the branch of Jakhi and together have 1/2 share.
(3.) BEFORE the Consolidation Officer, apart from documentary evidence, the respondents examined Budhram son of Madho, Ram Kishun son of Shivpal, Shivpal son of Baijnath, Asharfi Lal son of Parsadi Lal, Amrit Lal son of Ram Autar. The petitioners examined Moinuddin son of Mohd. Jakir, Prempal, Rampal and Smt. Sampat Devi as the witnesses. It may be mentioned that Prempal and Smt. Sampat Devi, in their statement admitted that land in dispute was jointly acquired by Jokhu and Jakhi sons of Babu and the respondents are through out in joint possession of the property in dispute. Rampal (petitioner -1) in his statement admitted that Jokhu and Jakhi were real brothers. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 27.06.2013, held that Smt. Sampat Devi was mother of Rampal and was aged about 90 years at the time of her statement. There was no reason for her to give false statement. She had admitted that property in dispute was jointly acquired by Jokhu and Jakhi who were real brothers and the respondents were through out in joint possession of it. Similarly Prempal, a joint co -sharer admitted co - tenancy of the respondents against his own interest. As the respondents through out remained in joint possession of the property in dispute as such bar under Section 49 of the Act will not apply. On these findings, he allowed the objection of the respondents and directed for recording their names and share of Budhram and Sukhram was held as 1/8 each and Amrit Lal as 1/4.;