S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings and involves question of title.
(2.) Agricultural land in dispute is comprised in Plot No. 672 /5 area 4 bigha. In the basic year, petitioner was recorded Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and original contesting respondent No. 4 Ram Charitra as occupant (At least until 1370 fasli (1962-63 A.D) name of Ram Charitra was recorded as occupant in the revenue records). Objections were filed before C.O. I, Gyanpur by the petitioner. C.O through order dated 23.9.1968, decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 4 and directed that the name of petitioner shall be deleted from the revenue records and name of respondent No. 4 shall be entered as Sirdar. The objections had been registered as Case No. 7356 (by the same objections matter pertaining to plot No. 767/2 was also decided however in this writ petition the said plot is not involved as matter in respect thereof was decided in favour of the petitioner). Against the order passed by C.O. appeal was filed before the S.O.C being Appeal No. 4439 of 1968. ASOC, Varanasi dismissed the appeal on 27.10.1970. Against the said order, revision No. 728/ 11505 Bansh Narain v. Ram Charitra was filed which was dismissed on 10.9.1975 by D.D.C Varanasi Camp Gyanpur hence this writ petition. (Appeal and revision against order of C.O in respect of other plot being plot No. 767/2 were filed by respondent No. 4, which were dismissed).
(3.) Legal question involved in this writ petition is as to whether tenant/ sub-tenant from mortgagee gets any right in the agricultural property or not. The facts of the case are that Mata Avtar who was ancestor of the petitioner executed a mortgage with possession of the agricultural land in dispute on 2.2.1921 in favour of Gajadhar. After the death of Gajadhar his son Chandrika Prasad became the mortgagee. Chandrika Prasad in the year 1956 transferred his mortgagee rights in favour of Ram Prasad and Ram Khelawan. In the same year i.e. 1956, petitioner redeemed the mortgaged property in dispute from Chandrika Prasad and Ram Prasad through registered deed executed by them (It appears that Ram Khelawan father of the petitioner had died meanwhile). In the mortgage deed of 1921, Mata Avtar mentioned that the mortgaged property was his occupancy tenancy (Dakhildar). It has come in para 6 of the judgment of the Appellate Court that on the redemption deed respondent Ram Charitra signed as witness.;