N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) -Against the concurrent findings recorded by the Settlement Officer (C) and the Dy. Director of Consolidation the present petition has been filed challenging the same on several grounds. Most of the submissions relate to the findings of fact and it is not relevant for this court to enter into the evidence in order to express an opinion whether the findings recorded are correct or not. The court will confine itself only on the questions of law.
(2.) In brief the facts are that one Krishan was the common ancestors of the parties who left behind him five branches. Petitioners 1 to 6 belong to the branch of one Prasad and petitioner No. 7 belongs to the branch of Bairagi. The respondents, however, belong to the branch of one Bandhu. The two other branches were Kewal and Gokul. Long back in 1292-F Khata No. 15 was recorded in favour of the branches of Bandhu Kewal and Prasad. Khata No. 20 was recorded in favour of the branch of Gokul while khata No. 26 was in favour of Bairagis branch. We are primarily concerned here with khata No. 15. The main submission of Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner was that this was a joint khata of the parties in which each had one half share. Due to some manipulation in the revenue record the share of Ram Dihal son of Kewal was wrongly recorded in favour of Tilak son of Bandhu although in fact he should have received only one half share of Ram Dihal. The submission is that once the courts have found the khata to be joint in the year 1292-F the burden was on the respondent to establish as to how larger share of land could have been recorded in his name. Basic year entry is in favour of the respondent and the petitioners are challenging the correctness of the same. In view of this, the burden would be squarely on the petitioner to establish that he had a share in the land in question. As a matter of fact a reading of the orders passed be the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Dy. Director of Consolidation would lead us to the conclusion that during the years 1292 to 1322-F material changes had come in the revenue entries. The land that stands recorded in favour of the respondent continues to be recorded in his name over - since 1322-F. It may be mentioned that there have been two settlement operations one of 1322-F and the other 1347-F. In both these settlement operation the same entries in favour of the respondents continued. This was a strong circumstance which has been taken into account by the two courts below and in my opinion, rightly. In fact the other documentary evidence on the record in the shape or orders passed in various litigation's also clearly show that the title of the respondent had been accepted in all of them. It is not understandable why these long standing entries should not be accepted merely because some definite evidence about the transaction which took place between 1292 and 1322-F have not come on the record. One cannot ignore the fact that the earliest entry was of 1884 that is more than 100 years ago and it is not expected that any party will be possessed of any direct evidence of the transaction which have taken piece during that period.
(3.) The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has given very cogent reason for repelling the contention of the petitioner that the share of Ram Dihal had been given to the respondent. In fact the conclusion made by him in para 6 of his order clearly indicates that Tilak got lessor area than the petitioner. The learned counsel has not challenged the correctness of the conclusion made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).;