DEV KUNWAR Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1968-1-48
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 03,1968

Dev Kunwar Appellant
VERSUS
Joint Director of Consolidation and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Dev Kunwar for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order, Annexure D of the affidavit, whereby the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in second appeal was set aside and the objection preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) The facts of the case are simple. Smt. Dev Kunwar, widow of Pyare Lal, was originally recorded as a co-tenure holder, but on the report of the village Lekhpal, her name was expunged on 31-7-1958, on the ground that she had died. The name of Bhajji, son of Gopal Das, was then entered in her place.
(3.) After the village was brought under consolidation, steps for preparation of the revised records were taken. The name of Smt. Dev Kunwar did not exist in the village papers and no objection was filed at that stage. The result was that her name did not exist in the revised records published Under Section 11-B of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) as in force in 1963. Thereafter some of the recorded tenure-holders applied Under Section 12-B for the partition of the joint holding. It was at this stage that Smt. Dev Kunwar, Petitioner, filed an objection Under Section 9 of the Act, along with an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the correction of the record. The Consolidation Officer, condoned the delay, but on merits dismissed the objection holding that the Petitioner was not the wife of Pyare Lal, who had already died. This order was confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but the Deputy Director of Consolidation hearing the second appeal took a different view on merits. The objection was, therefore, allowed and she was ordered to be recorded as a co-tenure holder. The Respondents preferred a revision Under Section 48 of the Act which was heard by the Joint Director of Consolidation. The Joint Director was of the opinion that no objection Under Section 9 of the Act could be entertained, even on the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, at the stage of the partition of the holding Under Section 12-B.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.