- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27. 2. 75 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Basti (D. D. C.) Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts of the case are in very narrow compass. THE pedigree in this case is not disputed. Gauri had two sons : Badal and Binai. Binai's line is repre sented by the petitioners, who are sons of Ram Jas and grandsons of Binai. Badal died leaving his widow Smt. Mohra, who died leaving behind her daughter Sunra On the death of Sunra, Harish Chandra, respondent No. 1 became her heir. The property in dispute is of tenancy nature, in 1324 Fasli settlement this property was recorded in the name of Gauri (Jiman 8) (occupancy tenancy) with 4 year period. It means Gauri might have occupied this land some times in 1320 Fasli. It seems that Gauri's tenure did not last long. In the Khatauni for 1348 Fash. Badal alone was recorded on papers as an occupancy years, meaning thereby, that this land was settled by zamindars with Badal alone in 1346 Fasli. Even otherwise the occupancy tenancy was not easily inheritable in these days. The Zamindars had absolute rights to eject the tenants and resettlers the land with any person of their choice. In this case choice fell on Badal alone. The name of Badal was expunged after his death and his widow Smt. Mohra was recorded in the papers in the Khatauai 1362 Fasli, as is evident from the judgment of the learned D. D. C, After the death of Smt. Mohna, dispute arose in mutation proceedings. Ram Jas, the father of the petitioners played fraud on two points. Firstly, he set up his real sisters Srnt. Sirtaji as the daughter of Smt. Mohra and sister of Smt. Sunra. The second point was that he claimed that the property had come down from Gauri and he had one half interest in the disputed property. Both these pleas were not accepted by the consolidation Courts and this way, Smt. Sirtaji was silenced.
(3.) BUT the petitioners doggedly have been pursuing the case. The magna carta of the contentions of the petitioners is that a com promise was entered into between the father of Harish Chandra (Harish Chandra was minor at that time) on his behalf and Ram Jas, the father of Lakhan and Sri Ram, petitioners. He obtained an admission from the father of Harish Chandra that in this property the interest of Ram Jas was one half. This compromise is dated 7. 2. 56 recorded in the mutation proceedings before the S. D. O. Admittedly, mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of correction of the names to enable the State to recover revenue. In these proceedings, the title of the parties is not decided nor the court has any jurisdiction to decide the proprietary interest of the parties.;