S.D. Khare, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that the orders of the Director of Consolidation (opposite party No. 1) passed on 16-2-1966 and of the Settlement Officer Consolidation (opposite party No. 2) passed on 31-5-1965 be quashed by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as amended upto date and the dispute relates to two occupancy tenancy plots of pre-zamindari abolition era, to wit, plots Nos 199 (10 biswas 9 dhurs) and 200 (10 biswas 10 dhurs) of village Chokia alias Udai-ka-Pura, Taluqa Chauthar, pargana Bhadohi, district Varanasi These two plots originally formed part of the occupancy holding of Sheo Harakh, who had three sons, namely. Ram Rup, Ram Jag (petitioner No. 1) and Ram Sundar. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the descendants of Ram Rup while Sm. Phulhasi (opposite party No. 4) is the widow of Ram Sundar, who died sometime in the year 1939 After the death of Ram Sundar there was some dispute between Sm. Phulbasi on the one hand and the collaterals of her husband on the other and Sm. Phulbasi had to institute a suit against them on the allegations that her husband Ram Sundar was separate from other members of his family at the time of his death However, a compromise was arrived at between the parties as a result of which the plaintiff i.e. Sm Phulbasi (opposite party No. 4) admitted the defendants' claim that Ram Sundar, her late husband, had died while he was still a member of the joint family along with the present petitioners and that the entire property was joint family property The defendants of that suit by means of that compromise recognised the right of Sm Phulbasi to remain in possession of the two plots, now in dispute, along with certain other property in lieu of maintenance, past and future. It was also provided that she shall have no right of transfer over the property which was being given to her in lieu of maintenance. The compromise decree was passed on 29-2-1944. It was also provided in the compromise that the possession of the plaintiff over the plots and other property which had been given to her duly recognised with effect from 1351 Fasli. During the years 1357 and 1358 Fasli the name of Sm. Phulbasi was recorded in the revenue papers as co-tenure-holder of the plots. When the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was enforced and consolidation operations were started in the village in question the name of the opposite party No. 4 appeared in Consolidation of Holdings Form No. 5 as a co-tenure-holder of the petitioners to the extent of one-third share in khata No. 55. The petitioner filed an objection that the entry, regarding her being a co-tenure-holder be expunged. Sm. Phulbasi also filed an objection claiming that she had become a bhumidhar of the two plots in question. The Consolidation Officer ordered that her name be expunged from the tenancy khata and that it should be entered only in the remarks column against these two plots as an occupant in lieu of maintenance. Opposite party No. 4 went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who look the view that the effect of the compromise was that the two plots in question stood transferred to her and that she was not a licencee therefor. He. therefore, ordered that the name of Sm. Phulbasi (opposite party No. 4) be recorded over the two plots as bhumidhar. The petitioners filed a revision application which was dismissed. The present writ petition is, therefore, directed against the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in appeal and the Director of Consolidation in revision.
(3.) IT is contended that the compromise arrived at between the parties in the year 1944 has not been properly interpreted and the opposite party No 4 being a widow in the joint family, had no interest in the family property and that the was in possession of the two plots in question merely in lieu of maintenance by virtue of the compromise decree of 1944. On the basis of these assertions it is alleged that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record which should be corrected by means of a writ in the nature of certiorari.;