Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai and Sri Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, for the petitioners and Sri R.K. Chitragupta, for respondents -2 and 3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.9.2003, allowing the revision of respondents -2 and 3 and setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 14.3.1995 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.11.1995, arising out of title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute relates to share of the parties, in basic consolidation year, khata 49 of village Kohdaura, pargana Naugarh, district Basti (at present Siddharth Nagar), which was recorded in the names of Sahib son of Umaro, Zikari son of Niyamat, Ismail, Yusuf sons of Jugul, Shakoor son of Sarfaraz, Ishaq son of Gafoor and Hasmati widow of Nasibdar. During partal, share of Sahib (now represented by respondents -2 and 3) was noted as 1/4, Zikari (now represented by petitioners -6 and 7) as 1/4, Ismail, Yasuf (petitioners -1 and 2) as 1/8 each and Ishaq, Shakoor and Hasmati (petitioners -3, 4 and 5) as 1/12 each. Sahib filed an objection under section 9 of the Act, claiming his 2/5 share in the land in dispute. Ismail, Yusuf filed an objection that their 1/8 share be kept jointly. Disputes were decided by Assistant Consolidation Officer in terms of compromise, by order dated 21.11.1987. Sahib filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 226) from the aforesaid order, challenging compromise. Sahib has stated that his share in khata in dispute was 1/2 but it has been illegally held as 1/4. Before the appellate Court, he filed khatauni jamabandi 1295 -F, in which names of Niranjan, Nirahu sons of Ghirahu and Doman son of Husi, were recorded. Sahib claimed that Doman was having 1/2 share and he was grandson of Doman, while the petitioners belonged to the branch of Niranjan and Ghirahu, who together had 1/2 share. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 10.1.1989 held that conciliation proceeding was signed by the parties and two members and Chairman of Consolidation Committee as such matter has been rightly decided by Assistant Consolidation Officer. On these findings the appeal was dismissed. Sahib filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Chief Revenue Officer allowed the revision by order dated 8.10.1991, set aside orders 21.11.1987 and 10.1.1989 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for trial of dispute on merit and decide afresh.
(3.) AFTER remand, Sahib filed khatauni 1292 -F and 1324 -F and examined Salim, Shekh Osalab and Ram Charan. The petitioners filed khatauni 1359 -F and CH Form -45 of previous consolidation and examined Ismail and Angad, witnesses. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties by order dated 14.3.1995 held that Sahib claimed his 2/3 share at the time of partal, 2/5 share in his objection and 1/2 share in appeal and thus raised different claims at different stages. Pedigree set but by Sahib was not proved. In previous consolidation, names of Umaro son of Doman, Niyamat son of Khusi, Dungur son of Rajjab, Shakoor, Gafoor sons of Sarfaraz and Hasmati widow of Nasibdar, were recorded, from which pedigree set up by the petitioners has been proved and share of Sahib would be 1/4. On these findings, he held share of Sahib as 1/4. Sahib filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 731) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 16.11.1995 affirmed the aforesaid findings and dismissed the appeal.;