- (1.) HEARD Sri Shrinath Dwivedi, for the petitioner and Sri N.L. Srivastava for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 01.05.2006, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 05.10.2006 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.12.2013 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The dispute relates to the land recorded in khatas 37, 38, 39, 40 and 132 of village Lamakol, pargana Reipura, tahsil Mau, district Chitrakoot. Basic consolidation year entries as well as objections filed by the parties are as follows: (a) In basic consolidation year, khata 37 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners). At the time of partal, in CH Form -4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/2 each. Another dispute was noted that names of Yadunath and Anirudh were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (respondents -4 to 8) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/5 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Share of Hanuman alias Hinwat is 1/2 and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (b) In basic consolidation year, khata 38 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga. At the time of partal, in CH Form -4, the shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/4 each and share of Hinwat as 1/2. Another dispute was noted that names of Yadunath and Anirudh were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute, while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/5 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Share of Hanuman alias Hinwat is 1/2 and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (c) In basic consolidation year, khata 39 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga, Smt. Dhokhiya widow of Bhairav Prasad and Lallu Prasad son of Prayag Lal. At the time of partal, in CH Form -4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/6 each and share of Hinwat as 1/3, share of Smt. Dhokhiya and Lallu Prasad as 1/6 each. Another dispute was noted that the name of Hinwat was wrongly recorded over the land in dispute while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/15 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Hanuman alias Hinwat sold his 1/3 share to Smt. Dhokhiya and Lallu Prasad and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (d) In basic consolidation year, khata 40 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga. At the time of partal, in CH Form -4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/4 each and share of Hinwat as 1/2. Another dispute was noted that name of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/10 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (e) In basic consolidation year, khata 132 was recorded in the name of Hanuman alias Hinwat son of Ganga (father of the petitioners). Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Jageshwar son of Ganga. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. This objection was contested by Hanuman alias Hinwat, who claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by Hanuman alias Hinwat that Jageswar died unmarried as such after his death his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that village was placed under consolidation operation on 20.02.1993. At that time Consolidation Officer Banda was having jurisdiction. The objections and written statements were filed before Consolidation Officer, Banda in the year 1994. Subsequently, by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the cases were transferred to Consolidation Officer Rajapur, after hearing the parties. However the petitioners did not appear before Consolidation Officer Rajapur. The Consolidation Officer proceeded exparte against the petitioners and his father by order dated 17.10.1997. Statements of Amar Pal Singh and Phool Singh were recorded on 09.03.1998 in the absence of the petitioners and their father and these witnesses were not cross examined. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 19.07.2004, held Rameshwar was inherited by his brothers Hinwat and Jageshwar. The respondents, being sons of Jageshwar, were his heirs. However, share of the parties were wrongly determined in the operative portion of the order. The respondents filed an application for correcting the operative portion of the order according to the findings recorded in the body of judgment. Then a subsequent order dated 01.05.2006 was passed allowing the objections of the respondents.;