- (1.) HEARD Sri C.K. Rai and Sri Lal Babu Lal and for the petitioners and Sri M.N. Singh, for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petitions have been field against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 12.07.1999, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17.09.2001 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.03.2002 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 no.8 of village Sagahat pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi. Khata 8 consists of plots. 2, 106, 122, 130, 131,134, 199, 204, 286, 287 and 323 (total area 6.59 acres). The dispute further relates to land of khata 6 and 39 of village Meerapur, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi. These khatas consisted of plots 63/2, 64/2, 80/1, 81/3, 84, 97, 101, 108, 112 and 174, (total area 2 -17 -15 bigha). In basic consolidation record khatas in dispute were recorded in the names Kalawati wife of Munshi Lal. Following objections were filed by the different parties in the land in dispute. (a) One Jangaliram filed an objection claiming to be co -sharer in the land in dispute. He claimed that the land in dispute belonged to Ganesh and after his death, it was inherited by his two sons Bhaggu and Ayodhya. The share of Ayodhya was inherited by Kalawati while the share of Bhaggu was inherited by his daughter Ahilya, who was mother of Jangaliram. After the order of the Consolidation Officer, rejecting the claim of Jangaliram, he did not file any appeal and the order of the Consolidation Officer has become final against him. (b) The other objection was filed by Salik and Ram Adhar (respondents -7 and 8). They claimed their right over plots 2, 199 and 286 of village Saghat. It has been stated by Salik and Ram Adhar that Ayodhya surrendered these three plots in favour of Zamindar in the year 1945 and thereafter Zamindar executed a lease deed dated 07.05.1950 of these plots in their favour and on the basis of that lease deed they became sirdar of the land in dispute. The claims of Salik and Ram Adhar were ultimately rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation and they have also not file any writ petition as such the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has become final against them. (c) Shivnath and Achhaiber, the petitioners also filed an objection claiming co - tenancy of 1/3 share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioners that the land in dispute was initially the property of Sukkal and Lattan sons of Churaman and after their death it was inherited by six sons of Sukhal, namely Munni, Mahesh, Sommar, Ganesh, Gopi and Moti but Ganesh was Karta of the family as such his name alone came to be recorded in the revenue records in the representative capacity. Out of six sons, two sons, namely, Munni and Mahesh died issueless and were inherited by his remaining brothers. Branch of Ganesh was inherited by Ayodhya and after his death by his daughter Smt. Kalawati. They belonged to branch of Moti as such they have 1/3 share in it. (d) One Sunder also filed an objection, claiming his right by way of adverse possession over plot 102. One Bhola filed objection claiming adverse possession over plots 194, 212 and 286. These objections were dismissed by Consolidation Officer and they did not challenge the order of Consolidation Officer.
(3.) ALL the aforesaid objections were consolidated and tried by the Consolidation Officer. Before the Consolidation Officer apart from documentary evidence, Balli, Ram Adhar, Harpat, Shivnath, Bihari and Munshi were examined as witnesses. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 12.07.1999 held that the alleged surrender deed dated 09.07.1945 is void inasmuch as on the date of surrender by Ayodhya, Ganesh was alive and Ayodhya had no right to surrender the land in dispute. He further found that due to execution of the alleged patta dated 07.02.1950 in favour of Salik and Ram Adhar over three plots claimed by them was not proved nor the patta was ever acted upon. The names of Salik and Ram Adhar were recorded for the first time by the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 11.09.1959 although at that time Supervisor Kanoongo had no right to make any entry in the khatauni as such the objection of Salik and Ram Adhar has no merit and is not liable to be accepted. He further found that so far as the claim of co -tenancy of Jangaliram is concerned, Jangaliram himself claimed to be son of Ahilya, who was daughter of Bageshwari. Bageshwari filed a civil suit for claiming co -tenancy in the land in dispute which was decided against her by the judgment dated 13.12.1963 and the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1963 has not been challenged any further and became final as such claim of Jangaliram is barred by res judicata and his objection was also dismissed. He further found that claim of adverse possession by Sunder and Bhola were not proved. In respect of co -tenancy of Shivnath and Achhaiber, it was found that one of the branches of the sons of Sukkhal, namely, Jittu grandson of Sommar did not file any objection claiming co -tenancy in the land in dispute. Similarly, the branch of Gopi also did not file any objection. The land of village Sagahat was recorded in the name of Sukkhal son of Churaman in 1291 F as well as 1309 F but in 1334 F, it was recorded in the name of Ganesh alone with the period of cultivation of 12 years and same entry continued till 1356 F and 1359 F with the different period of cultivation. Smt. Kalawati filed a lease deed dated 27.10.1914 and claimed that the land in dispute was settled with Ganesh alone by the Zamindar and since then it was recorded in his name and he was in exclusive possession over it and his other brothers have no share in it. So far as the land of village Meerapur is concerned, only two plots were recorded in the name of Sukkhal in1291 F. These two plots along with six other plots came to be recorded in the name of Ganesh in 1334 F with different period of cultivation which shows that the land in dispute was settled afresh with Ganesh along with other plots. Therefore, the identity as well as area and period of cultivation all has been changed. Shivnath, Achhaiber, Balli, Kedar, could not prove their joint possession over the land in dispute. On these finding all the objections were dismissed by order dated 12.7.1999.;