Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1829 (ALL)

Temal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation

2017-08-04

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Lallan Verma, for the petitioners, Sri R.D. Kushwaha, for respondent-3 and Sri Onkar Nath Rai, for respondents-5 to 7. 2. The writ petition has been filed against orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.07.1984 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.08.1989 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of share in basic consolidation year khatas 320 and 321 of village Sapaha, tappa Bhaluwa, pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, district Deoria. In basic consolidation record, names of the branches of the petitioners and respondents second set were recorded. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, claiming ? share in khatas in dispute. The petitioners took plea that the disputed land was coming from the time of common ancestor Nand Lal, who had three sons Parsan, Dhodha and Prayag. The petitioners were descendants of Dhodha and Prayag and jointly had ? share while respondents second set were descendants of Parsan and jointly had ? share. Respondents second set contested the objection and denied the pedigree given by the petitioners. According to them Asman was common ancestor, who had two sons Bhagirathi and Nand Lal. Parsan was son of Bhagirathi and Dhodha and Prayag were sons of Nand Lal. They were descendants of Parsan and had share. Other disputes were also decided but that are not relevant for this case. 4. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. The petitioners filed copy of khatauni 1292 F of village Sapaha Buzurg, in which Parsan, Dhodha and Prayag were shown as sons of Nand Lal. The petitioners examined Temal and Neur as witnesses. The respondents filed khatauni of 1860 of village Khardar Gogapatti in which Bhagirathi and Nand Lal were shown as sons of Asman. Khatauni 1323 F and 1347 F, in which Parsan was shown as son of Bhagirathi and Dhodha and Prayag were shown as sons of Nand Lal. The respondents examined Gopal and Dhanraj as witnesses. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 20.09.1979, held that from khatauni 1292 F, pedigree of the petitioners was proved as such they jointly had ? share in the disputed khatas. In village Khardar Gogapatti also they were given ? share. On these findings, he allowed the objection of the petitioners and held their ? share jointly. 5. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 20.09.1979, held that from khatauni 1292 F, pedigree of the petitioners was proved as such they jointly had ? share in the disputed khatas. In village Khardar Gogapatti also they were given ? share. On these findings, he allowed the objection of the petitioners and held their ? share jointly. 5. Moti Chand and others (respondents second set) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1706) from aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 10.07.1984, held that judgment of Consolidation Officer for village Khardar Gogapatti is not final between the parties as revision was pending. In khatauni of 1860 of village Khardar Gogapatti, Bhagirathi and Nand Lal were shown as sons of Asman. In khatauni 1292 F, Bhagirathi was shown as son of Asman. In khatauni 1323 F, Parsan was shown as son of Bhagirathi. It appears that inadvertently, in one khatauni of 1292 F Parsan, Dhodha and Prayag were shown as son of Nand Lal, which was later on corrected. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and held that the petitioners jointly had share. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 466) from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the finding of appellate court and dismissed revision, by order dated 18.08.1989. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation relied upon khatauni Jamabandi 1860, in which names of Bhagirathi and Nand Lal were recorded as sons of Asman. In khatauni 1292 F, Bhagirathi was shown as son of Asman. In khatauni 1323 F, Parsan was shown as son of Bhagirathi. They found that it appears that inadvertently, in one khatauni of 1292 F, Parsan, Dhodha and Prayag were shown as sons of Nand Lal, which was later on corrected. So far as judgment of village Khardar Gogapatti is concerned, it has been held that in that judgment, parentage of the parties had not been decided. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below do not suffer from any illegality. 7. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.