- (1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 16.06.2004, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 05.09.2006 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.09.2013, passed in title proceedings, arising out of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The dispute related to plot nos. 1036 and 1060, situated in village Sherdeeh, pargana Jhunsi, tahsil Phoolpur, district Allahabad. In basic consolidation record, the land in dispute were recorded in the names of Lal Bahadur, Panna Lal, Ram Singh and Ram Awadh sons of Ram Nath (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). The petitioner raised a dispute at the time of partal, claiming co -tenancy of 1/2 share in the land in dispute. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act and stated that the father of the respondents was his real brother and the land in dispute was acquired by their father, in which the petitioner as well as the father of the respondents have 1/2 share each. After the death of father of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner could not be mutated over the land in dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an amendment application on 05.07.1997 and amended the pleadings and said that in the family settlement, plot no. 1036 was given in exclusive possession of Ram Nath (father of the respondents) while plot no. 1060 was given in exclusive possession of the petitioner. Before Consolidation Officer, the petitioner, apart from his statement, examined one Ram Kailash and the respondents, apart from documentary evidence, examined Lal Bahadur and Chottey Lal. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties, by order dated 16.06.2004, found that the petitioner could not prove that the land in dispute was acquired by his father Kali Deen. The petitioner, prior to filing the objection in consolidation, himself filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the Act, in respect of joint family property, in which, the land in dispute was not included in the schedule of the properties, which shows that the petitioner had no share in it. On this finding, the objection of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1986) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who also held that the petitioner could not prove that the land in dispute was acquired during jointness of the family from the joint family found. Contrary to it, it has been proved that the land in dispute were purchased by Ram Nath in his name in the year 1955 and 1957, respectively. As in the suit under Section 229B of the Act, these plots were not included in the schedule of the joint family property, as such, it is apparent that these plots were not joint family property. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on the same ground.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment application filed by the petitioner has been allowed by Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.01.1999 and the objection of the petitioner has been permitted to be amended. The petitioner has specifically raised the plea that under the family settlement, plot no. 1036 has been given in the exclusive possession of Ram Nath and plot no. 1060 has been given in exclusive possession of the petitioner. However, no issue has been framed by Consolidation Officer in this respect. From the khasra filed by the petitioner of the year 1373 F, the possession of the petitioner over plot no. 1060 was proved. In this way, the family settlement claimed by the petitioner has been proved, but no finding has been recorded on it's basis. He further submits that Consolidation Officer has illegally noted in its judgment that plot no. 1036 was purchased in the year 1955 and plot no. 1060 was purchased in the year 1957, while the fact was otherwise, i.e. plot no. 1060 was purchased in the year1955 and plot no. 1036 was purchased in the year 1957. Thus, the correct facts have not been considered, which shows non application of mind. The appeal and revision of the petitioner were also dismissed.;