Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri C.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amresh Singh for the Gaon Sabha. The writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by the petitioners regarding khata No. 20 situated in Village Vahansar, District and Pargana Bareilly.
(2.) THIS land was recorded in the name of one Kesar Jahan Begam. Kesar Jahan Begam is said to be the sister of the petitioners mother and she is alleged to have executed an oral gift deed of her land in favour of the petitioners. This claim has been negatived by all the three Courts below, holding that the oral gift deed in favour of the petitioners were not proved. The consolidation authorities further held that Kesar Jahan Begam died heirless and, therefore, directed that the property be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. It also appears from the record that certain other objections were filed claiming on the basis of adverse possession. These objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and the order does not appear to have been challenged any further.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a suit under section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by the petitioners claiming on the basis of the alleged oral gift. This suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal wherein they were ordered to be recorded over the land in question on the basis of a compromise said to have been entered into between the parties thereto. Admittedly the suit and appeal were not contested by the State and Gaon Sabha. They were also not signatories to the compromise. However, since this compromise order was not implemented in the revenue records, the petitioners were forced to file an objection under section 9 -A(2) on the start of consolidation operations. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that the compromise decree passed by the revenue Court, not having been challenged by any party, has attained finality and, therefore, the objection of the petitioners was liable to be accepted. He has further submitted that in the proceedings before the consolidation authorities, the brothers of Kesar Jahan Begam appeared and accepted the gift deed in favour of the petitioners and yet the consolidation authorities have not accepted the said gift deed which could have been proved only by oral evidence. No documentary evidence can exist showing an oral gift deed. The alternative submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the brothers of Kesar Jahan Begam, the recorded tenure holder had appeared in the proceedings and deposed in favour of the petitioners and it is, therefore, established on record that Kesar Jahan Begam did leave behind next of kin and, therefore, also the impugned orders insofar as it vests the property, in question, in the Gaon Sabha on the ground that Kesar Jahan Begam had died heirless, cannot be sustained.;