RAM SURAT RAM , J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh for the petitioners and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh for the respondents.
(2.) This petition has been filed against the orders of ASOC dated 2.1.2004 and DDC dated 4.5.2016, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(3.) The dispute related to land recorded in khata no. 9 of village Pahindapur, pargana Nizamabad, district Azamgarh. The petitioners filed an objection for recording their names over the khata in dispute and declaring their shares as in it. The petitioner took the plea that the land in dispute was original holding belonging to Badlu. After the death of Badlu, it was inherited by his son Chotu ( share), Moti and Lalman, sons of Feru ( share) and Ram Asrey, son of Meru ( share). Meru died on 30.10.1954 and by the order of CO dated 14.2.1959, after the death of Badlu, names of the aforesaid persons were mutated in the consolidation records. Thereafter, Ram Asrey executed a sale deed dated 15.4.1975 in respect of his share in the land in dispute and on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the petitioners had become co-sharer of share in the land in dispute and their names were liable to be recorded over it. The case was contested by Chotu, Moti and Lalman. They have stated tht Meru died issueless during the lifetime of Badlu. After the death of Badlu, 1/2 share was inherited by Chotu and remaining 1/2 share was jointly inherited by Moti and Lalman, but by making forgery in the order of CO dated 14.2.1959, name of Ram Asrey was got recorded as son of Meru, although Meru died on 14.3.1953 and after death of Meru, his widow Smt. Prabhudei remarried to Phool Chand, resident of village Khatuhana, from whom Ram Asrey was born on 1.1.1955. Ram Asrey was not the son of Moti and had no share in the land in dispute. Ram Asrey also filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 15 of 1972) u/s 21 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, for declaring him as co-sharer of share in the land in dispute. This suit was dismissed by the SDO by order dated 9.8.1972.;