- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of Khata No. 168.
(2.) BEFORE the Consolidation Officer, two khatas were in dispute, namely 239 and 168. Both the parties filed their objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Con solidation of Holdings Act and the objections were considered by the Consolida tion Officer. Smt. Seo Kumari gave a pedigree, which went unchallenged till today. It means that the parties belongs to the same family. Smt. Seo Kumari's objection main thrust was that the properties in both the Khatas were joint. Similarly, the petitioner Ram Pyare Singh wanted to say that he had a special right in respect of Khata No. 168 and he has got these Khatas by virtue of a fresh settlement with him on 31. 8. 46. The Consolidation Officer considered the points of the parties and came to a definite conclusion that the properties of both the Khatas were joint. The theory of fresh settlement in favour of Ram Pyare Singh was found to be wrong. Ram Pyare Singh filed an-appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation upheld the finding of the Consolidation Officer in respect of Khata No. 239 and found that both the parties were co-tenants. But in respect of Khata No. 168, he found that the patta in favour of the petitioner was valid and he declared him to be the sole tenure-holder of this Khata. Smt. Seo Kumari remained dissatisfied. She filed a revision. The learned Dy. Director of Consolidation upheld the claim of Smt. Seo Kumari again and rejected the theory of fresh settlement in respect of Khata No. 168 in favour of Ram Pyare Singh. The result was that the judgment of the Consolidation Officer was upheld by the learned Dy. Director of Consolidation. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Pyare Singh have filed this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at stretch and gone through the record. I find that there is absolutely no force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) FROM the unchallenged pedigree given in the judgment of Consolidation Officer, it appears that Jauhar Singh the ancestor of the parties. In the third set tlement, the disputed plot was entered in the name of Potai Singh s/o Pal Singh, who was the son of Jauhar Singh. Some plots were recorded in the name of Gaj Raj Singh, who was the brother of Desh Raj Singh, husband of Sheo Kumari. A suit was filed under Section 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was decided inter-party on 29. 11. 68 on the basis of a compromise. In this compromise, Ram Pyare Singh pleaded that the whole family was joint and according to the pedigree, he admitted that both the parties had not their due shares. This compromise was in respect of both the Khatas. That has not been challenged so far. It amounts to an admission as a whole, if an admission goes unexplained, it binds the maker of the admission and he cannot reside from the same. Another specialty of the case was that the land recorded in the name of Vishwa Nath Singh, the father-in-law of Smt. Sheo Kumari, was claimed by Ram Pyare Singh and his claim was not contested, but when the property recorded in the name of Kotai Singh, who was an ancestor of Ram Pyare Singh came to be disputed, Ram Payare Singh denied the claim of Smt. Sheo Kumari. This was the height of inequity which was displayed by Ram Pyare Singh.;