Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ajay Bhanot, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh, for contesting respondent -3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.6.2015, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute relates to land of basic consolidation year khata 284 of village Dakhinara, tahsil Shikohabad, district Firozabad. In basic consolidation records, khata in dispute was recorded in the names of Mini Lal son of Summer, Arami, Dharmjeet and Hakim Singh sons of Ninnu and Shripat son of Rate. Shripat (respondent -3) filed an objection for deleting the names of other recorded persons from the khata in dispute. It has been stated by respondent -3 that the land in dispute was property of his maternal grand -father Vovid, which was obtained by him in partition of joint family property in the year 1941. Later on, it was inherited by him and his brother Charani. Charani died issueless as such he was sole owner of the khata in dispute. The names of other persons were unauthorizedly recorded over it. Mini Lal and others (now represented by the petitioners) contested the case on the ground that after partition of joint family property, Vovid and his heirs was found themselves unable to pay rent to zamindar of the land in dispute as such they co -opted Ninnu and others, their predecessors, as co -tenant in the land in dispute with the consent of zamindar. Their names were validly recorded in khatauni prior of abolition of zamindari. They were co -sharers in the khata in dispute to the extent of 1/2 share and their names were throughout recorded without any objection to Vovid or Shripat and Charani. Shripat obtained bhumidhari certificate in respect of his 1/2 share in plots 618 and 620 and executed a sale -deed in favour of Rajendra Singh and Smt. Malti Devi, in 1982, whose names were mutated by the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 30.10.1982. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who after hearing the parties, by order dated 14.9.1990, held that the names of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute since before date of vesting. Shripat had knowledge about the entry of the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute in 1359 F, thereafter in 1982 at the time of execution of sale -deed and obtaining bhumidhari certificate, but he never raised any objection against their names prior to consolidation operation. He obtained bhumidhari certificate in respect of 1/2 share as such his share was 1/2 only. On these findings, he held that share of Shripat was 1/2 only and dismissed the objection of Shripat.
(3.) SHRIPAT filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 249) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 6.8.1992, held that joint family of Vovid and Shyama consisted 17.92 acre land jointly recorded in khata 47 in 1348 -F, which was partitioned between Vovid and the descendants of Shyama by order of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 6.12.1941, passed in Case No. 42/5, in which separate kurra of an area of 5.45 acre land was prepared in the name of Vovid. Same land came to be recorded in the names of Charani and Shripat, in 1349 -F, in khata 21. From copies of Pariwar Register it was proved that Charani and Shripat were living separately from family of Ninnu and others. Under some mistake, names of Ninnu and others were recorded over the disputed land along with Charani and Shripat, in 1359 -F, although the land, which was given in kurras of Sarnam and Mini Lal in partition suit, were separately recorded in their names. The names of predecessors of the petitioners were recorded in 1359 -F khatauni without any basis. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 14.9.1991 was set aside and the names of predecessor of the petitioners were directed to be deleted from the land in dispute. Mini Lal and others (now represented by the petitioners) filed revision (registered as Revision No. 181) against aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 22.7.1993.;