Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 64 (ALL)

Dujai v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur

2004-01-13

U.K.DHAON

body2004
ORDER U. K. Dhaon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3. None has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties 4 to 9. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court against the orders dated 8.5.1980, 15.9.1970 and 29.1.1970 passed by the Consolidation authorities. The brief facts of the case are that, in the basic year, the name of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records over Khata No. 82 of Village Daudpur Pargana Peer Nagar Tehsil Sidhauli district Sitapur. The opposite parties 4 to 9 filed objection claiming co- tenancy rights. The opposite parties 5 to 8 also claimed their rights by adverse possession over the land in dispute. 3. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the evidence on record has recorded a finding that the land is coming down from the time of Chain who was the common ancestor and accordingly allowed the objections of the opposite parties and granted them co-tenancy rights by the order dated 29.1.1970. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer filed appeal as provided under Section 11 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order date 15.9.1970 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the petitioner approached to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by filing a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 11.5.1971 allowed the revision. The opposite parties being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation filed writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1971. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 8.5.1980 dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the consolidation authorities the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in 1340F, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Jodhey, the father of the petitioners and as such the Courts below have wrongly granted the co-tenancy rights to the opposite parties 4 to 9. He further submits that under the Avadh Rent Act, the tenancy was not heritable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in 1340F, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Jodhey, the father of the petitioners and as such the Courts below have wrongly granted the co-tenancy rights to the opposite parties 4 to 9. He further submits that under the Avadh Rent Act, the tenancy was not heritable. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Hardei v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and others, 1990 (1) AWC 620 (LB) : 1990 ALJ 225 and Jagannath v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2001 (92) RD 120. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Courts below. 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. There is no dispute that Jodhey was the eldest son of Chain who was the common ancestor of the parties. There is also no dispute that name of Jodhey was recorded in 1340F. The Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the name of Jodhey who was eldest was recorded in the representative capacity. The Courts below have also recorded the finding that the family was joint at the time of acquisition of land. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the consolidation courts. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case as Jodhey has inherited the land in representative capacity after the death of Chain being the eldest son. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.