Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, for the petitioners -review applicants. The writ petition was filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 30.11.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.6.2013, in title proceedings of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After hearing the parties, writ petition was dismissal by judgment dated 24.7.2013. Now the petitioners have filed this application for review of the judgment.
(2.) THE dispute relates to plots 663 (area 0.90 acre) and 664 (area 0.15 acre) of village Khanawan, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi, which were recorded in basic consolidation year khata 71 in the names of Naurangi widow Daya Ram and Nikhiddi son of Kharpattu. During partal, the petitioners and Lallu and Bahadur sons of Raja claimed co -tenancy in the land in dispute as such a dispute has been noted in this respect in CH Form -5. Nikhiddi (respondent -3) filed an objection under section 9 of the Act, stating therein that the land in dispute were jointly acquired by Kharpattu son of Devan and Ganesh son of Sewan from the then zamindar on patta on 19.8.1948. Their names were also recorded in the khatauni 1356 -F, 1360 -F and 1362 -F. After death of Ganesh, name of his daughter Smt Naurangi was mutated and after death of Kharpattu, name of his son Nikhiddi was mutated. They alone remained in possession over the land in dispute. The petitioners and Lallu and Bahadur sons of Raja were not the co -sharers in the land in dispute. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. The petitioners examined Panna, Bahadur and Anil Kumar son of Uma Shanakar. They also filed a copy of sale -deed dated 13.5.1964, showing that the petitioners and Kharpattu had jointly purchased the land as they were living as the members of Joint Hindu Family. They also filed khataunies of khatas 9, 41, 88 and 190 of the village, in order to show that they were jointly recorded over the various khatas. Respondents examined Paras Nath and Smt. Naurangi and filed original patta dated 19.8.1948 and khatauni 1356 -F and 1360 -F. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 17.12.2009 held that in khatauni 1359 -F name of Basantu was also recorded over the land in dispute along with the names of Ganesh and Kharpattu with period of cultivation of 4 years. Smt. Naurangi, in her statement had admitted possession of Panna over the land in dispute. From the sale -deed dated 13.5.1964 and khataunis of khatas 9, 41, 88 and 190, it was proved that family of the petitioners and Kharpattu and Ganesh were living jointly. Accordingly it was held that as the land in dispute was acquired during jointness of the family as such all the branches have share in it. On these finding he directed for recording the names of the petitioners jointly over 1/4th share of the land in dispute. Nikhiddi filed an application for recall of the order dated 17.12.2009, which was dismissed by order dated 20.6.2012.
(3.) NIKHIDDI and Smt. Naurangi filed two time barred appeals from the orders dated 17.12.2009 and 20.6.2012, along with delay condonation application. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 30.11.2012, held that land in dispute was acquired by Kharpattu son of Devan and Ganesh son of Sewan from the then zamindar through patta dated 19.8.1948. Their names were also recorded in the khatauni 1356 -F as hereditary tenant. In khatauni 1360 -F and basic year names of Ganesh and Kharpattu alone were recorded. Thus it is proved that land in dispute was not an ancestral property but self acquired property of Ganesh and Kharpattu alone and other members of the family will have no share in it. On these findings the appeals were allowed and orders of Consolidation Officer were set aside and basic year entry was maintained. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 22.6.2013 held that khatauni 1359 -F filed by the petitioners was a forged document and no reliance can be placed on it. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence to prove their possession over the land in dispute. On these findings the revision of the petitioners was dismissed. Hence this writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by order dated 24.7.2013. Now the petitioners have filed this review application.;