B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of the common judgment dated 15-9-1978 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh. Both the petitions involve almost similar questions. It would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.
(2.) KHATA Nos. 29, 151, 153, 195 and 260 were in dispute and Smt. Shyama Kunwari, mother of Smt. Jagdeiya, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979, was recorded as sole tenure-holder in KHATA no. 199 and in khata nos. 29, 151, 153, 195 and 260 as co-tenant in the basic year. Against basic year entry an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner Smt. Jagdeiya, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979, alleging that Smt. Shyama Kunwari was an original tenure-holder who executed a sale-deed in her favour and on 10-1-68, Smt. Jagdeiya did not execute any sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others, Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 1978 Smt. Maharajiya and another filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the UP CH Act alleging that Smt. Shyama Kunwari had executed a surrender-deed on 5-1-1968 in favour of her three daughters, namely, Smt. Jagdeiya (petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 92 of 1979), Smt. Maharajiya (the present petitioner and Smt. Prabhawati and that no sale-deed was executed by Smt. Jagdeiya in favour of Chandrika and others. Smt. Prabhawati died and after her death Smt. Sonmatiya, (petitioner no. 2 in the present writ petition) has contested the case alleging that after Smt. Shyama Kunwari her three daughters succeeded her interest and that there was no surrender by Smt. Shyama Kunwari and that Smt. Jagdeiya has not executed any sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others. It was prayed that the basic year entry may be corrected and Smt Maharajiya, daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari and Smt. Sonmatia, grand-daughter of Shyama Kunwari and Smt. Jagdeiya daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari may be recorded as co-tenure-holders. Chandrika and others, Respondents no. 5 to 8, filed another objection claiming to be recorded as bhumidhar on the basis of the sale-deed and that Smt. Shyama Kunwari did not execute any surrender-deed in favour of her three daughters, rather she had executed a sale-deed in favour of her daughter Smt. Jagdeiya who was their vendor and that their names may be entered as bhumidhars on the basis of the sale-deed and the basic year entry may be corrected accordingly. The Consolidation Officer decided the case by his order dated 13-11-1975 holding that all the three daughters of Smt. Shyama Kunwari got the land on the basis of the surrender-deed dated 5-1-1968 and directed that the names of Smt. Jagdeiya, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979, Smt. Maharajiya another daughter and Smt. Sonmatiya, daughter of third daughter Smt. Prabhawati daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari may be entered as co-tenants. Chandrika and others, the alleged vendees of Smt. Jagdeiya filed appeal and Smt. Jagdeiya also filed appeal. The vendees alleged that they have obtained sale-deed from Smt. Jagdeiya and were entitled to be recorded as bhumidhars whereas Smt. Jagdeiya alleged that she did not execute any sale-deed in favour of the vendees and that she alone was entitled to be recorded in place of Smt. Shyama Kunwari and her other sisters were not entitled to any right, title and interest in the property in dispute. All the appeals were dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The parties preferred revisions. The revision of the vendees Chandrika and others was allowed and they were held to be bhumidhars on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Smt. Jagdeiya. The revision of Smt. Jagdeiya was also allowed to the extent that Smt. Shyama Kunwari did not execute any surrender deed in favour of her three daughters rather she was entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar.
(3.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 1978 has been filed by Smt. Maharajiya and Smt. Sonmatiya who wanted to prove that Smt. Shyama Kunwari executed surrender deed in favour of all her three daughters and CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979 was filed by Smt. Jagdeiya who wanted to challenge the sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Maharajiya and Smt. Sonmatiya, urged that the surrender deed of Smt. Shyama Kunwari has been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 183 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) in favour of her all the three daughters on 5-1-1968. Hence all the three daughters were entitled to be recorded as bhumidhars and the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation holding only Smt. Jagdeiya, to be entitled to the interest of Smt. Shyama Kunwari was erroneous. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand urged that only Smt. Jagdeiya was entitled to the plots on the basis of sale deed executed in her favour by Smt. Shyama Kunwari which were originally recorded in the name of Smt. Shyama Kunwari and that Smt. Jagdeiya has executed sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others. The learned counsel of Smt. Jagdeiya, on the other hand in the other writ petition, urged that she did not execute any sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others whereas the learned counsel for the respondents urged that she did execute sale-deed and the vendees, namely, Chandrika; and others, were entitled to be recorded as bhumidhars.;