Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 580 (ALL)

JAGANNATH v. D. D. C.

2017-02-17

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 11.08.1978 and 28.07.1980 (Annexure Nos. 1 & 3) passed by respondent nos. 3 and 1 respectively. 3. It appears that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have died during the pendency of the writ petition and their legal heirs and representatives have been duly substituted. 4. The dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to Khata nos. 93 and 41. In the basic year khata no. 93 was recorded in the name of Tulsi Ram son of Ram Lal petitioner no. 3 while Khata no. 41 was recorded jointly in the names of Mahabir father of respondent nos. 4 and 5, Ram Autar father of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram. Ram Autar and petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram filed an objection under Section 9 (A)(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") claiming that the common ancestor of the parties Shivdeen had two sons, Janki and Bhola. Bhola had died during the life time of Shivdeen and after the death of Bhola partition had taken place between Janki and Gajadhar son of Bhola. Late Janki was the sole tenant of the disputed khatas which had fallen to his share in the aforesaid partition in which neither Bhola nor his son Gajadhar had any right title or interest nor they were in possession thereof. Janki had one daughter Mst. Angani, who had two sons Ram Autar, father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and Ram Lal, father of petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram who used to live with their maternal grand father Janki and helped him in cultivating his land. Janki had one daughter Mst. Angani, who had two sons Ram Autar, father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and Ram Lal, father of petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram who used to live with their maternal grand father Janki and helped him in cultivating his land. After the death of Janki, Ram Lal and Ram Autar entered into the possession of the disputed khatas on account of their being the legal heirs of late Janki, however since Ram Lal was elder of the two brothers (Agua of the family) his name alone was recorded in the revenue records as tenant of the khatas in dispute in place of his maternal grand father Janki as at the relevant point of time Ram Autar was minor. It was further alleged by Ram Autar and petitioner no.3 in their objection that Mahabir, father of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 after getting his name recorded as a tenant of the disputed khatas in the revenue records fictitiously without the knowledge of Ram Autar and petitioner no.3 in 1333F had obtained bhumidhari sanad in respect of the 2/3 portion of the disputed khatas by depositing ten times of the land revenue and thereafter got his name recorded as bhumidhar of 2/3 portion of khata nos. 41 although Mahabir had no share in the disputed khatas. A prayer was made in their objection that the revenue entry existing in the basic year khatauni showing Mahabir as bhumidhar of 2/3 portion of the disputed khatas be expunged and the names of the petitioners be recorded in his place or in the alternative, in case it was found that Mahabir had any share in the disputed khatas, it be declared that the petitioners jointly and Mahabir individually had 1/2 share each in the disputed khata. 5. The claim of Ram Lal and petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram was resisted by Mahabir on the ground that on the basis of the revenue entry made in the khatauni of 1333F he along with petitioner no.3 Tulsiram had become co-tenant of the disputed khatas in which he had 1/2 share while Tulsiram had 1/3 share. Petitioner no.3 Tulsiram had abandoned his share and hence thereafter he had became sole tenant of 2/3 portion of the disputed plots and co-sharer of the remaining portion of the disputed plots. Petitioner no.3 Tulsiram had abandoned his share and hence thereafter he had became sole tenant of 2/3 portion of the disputed plots and co-sharer of the remaining portion of the disputed plots. Ram Autar had forcibly occupied some plots of the disputed khatas from which he was ejected pursuant to the order passed in proceeding under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was instituted against him by Mahabir and possession of the disputed plots was delivered to Mahabir pursuant to the order passed by Board of Revenue on 24.04.1973. He also pleaded that the claim of the Ram Lal and Tulsi Ram petitioner no.3 was clearly barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence on account of their failure either to challenge the entry made in the khatauni of 1333F showing him as cotenant of the disputed khata along with the petitioner no.3 Tulsiram and the bhumidhari sanad obtained by him in respect of 2/3 portion of the disputed khatas under Section 136 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") after depositing ten times of the land revenue, pursuant to which he had become bhumidhar of the aforesaid portion of the disputed khatas and in view of the above the claim of Ram Lal and Tulsi Ram was liable to be rejected. 6. The aforesaid objection, which was registered as case no. 11874 of 1951 was decided by Consolidation officer, Soraon, Allahabad by his order dated 01.06.1978, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, holding that Munshiram and Ram Naresh respondent nos. 4 and 5, sons of Mahabir, Tulsiram son of Ram Lal, petitioner no.3, Jagannath and Baijnath sons of Ram Autar petitioner no. 1 and 2 were the co-tenants of the disputed khatas having following shares :- (I) Tulsi Ram petitioner no.3 1/4 (II) Baijnath petitioner no.2 1/8 (III) Jagannath petitioner no.1 1/8 (IV) Munshiram respondent no.5 1/4 (V) Ram Naresh respondent no.6 ¼ 7. It was further ordered for expunging the names of the petitioners recorded as tenants of plot no. 475 area 1-16-0 in the basic year Khatauni and for recording the same as Talaab Gaon Sabha. 8. The order dated 01.06.1970 was challenged by the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. It was further ordered for expunging the names of the petitioners recorded as tenants of plot no. 475 area 1-16-0 in the basic year Khatauni and for recording the same as Talaab Gaon Sabha. 8. The order dated 01.06.1970 was challenged by the petitioners as well as the respondent nos. 4 and 5, sons of Mahabir, who had died during the pendency of the litigation, by filing two appeals before the Assistant Settlement officer Consolidation, Allahabad/Karchana which were registered as appeal no. 555, Ram Naresh and others v. Tulsiram and others and appeal no. 565, Tulsiram and others v. Munshiram and others, under Section 11(1) of the Act. The respondent no.2 by his order dated 11.08.1978 dismissed appeal no. 555 while appeal no 656 was allowed by him holding that the name of Mahabir had been recorded in the revenue records in 1333F fictitiously and he was illegally granted bhumidhari sanad in respect of 2/3 portion of disputed plots upon his depositing ten times of the land revenue on the basis of the aforesaid fictitious revenue entry showing him as co-tenant of the disputed khatas and hence the same did not confer any right, title or interest on him with regard to the disputed khatas and the basic year entry existing in favour of the late Mahabir showing him as bhumidhar of the disputed khata was liable to be expunged. The respondent no.2 further held that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had 1/4th share each and petitioner no.3 Tulsiram had 1/2 share in the disputed khatas. 9. Against the order dated 28.07.1980 passed by respondent no.2, two revisions were preferred by respondent nos. 4 and 5 before the Joint Settlement officer Consoldiation, respondent no.1 under Section 48 of the Act which were registered as revision nos. 218/384/165 and 219/385/164. Both the revisions were allowed by respondent no.1 by his order dated 28.07.1980, Annexure-3 to this writ petition. 10. The respondent no.1 by his order dated 28.07.1980 held that plot no. 475 of the disputed khata no. 43 was liable to be recorded as Talaab of Gaon Sabha pursuant to the order of the Consolidation officer. He further held that after consolidating the remaining plots of the two khatas Munshiram and Ram Naresh, respondent nos. 4 and 5 had 1/3 share each, petitioner no.3- 1/6 and petitioner nos. 475 of the disputed khata no. 43 was liable to be recorded as Talaab of Gaon Sabha pursuant to the order of the Consolidation officer. He further held that after consolidating the remaining plots of the two khatas Munshiram and Ram Naresh, respondent nos. 4 and 5 had 1/3 share each, petitioner no.3- 1/6 and petitioner nos. 1 and 2, Jagannath and Baijnath jointly had 2/12 share in the disputed khatas. 11. There is no challenge in this writ petition to the findings recorded in the impugned order by respondent nos. 1 and 3 with regard to plot no. 475 which has been ordered by them to be recorded as "Talaab" Gram Panchayat after expunging the basic year entry. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1 committed a manifest error of law and a patent illegality in reversing the order passed by the respondent no.2, Assistant Settlement officer Consolidation, by which he had rightly held that Mahabir father of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 was not entitled to any share in the disputed khatas on the basis of the bhumidhari sanad obtained by him on the basis of the entry made in his favour in revenue records in 1333F as co-tenant of the disputed khatas on the ground of the same being fictitious. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 while rejecting the claim of Mahabir, father of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 that he had 2/3 share in the disputed khatas had taken note of the pedigree which was brought on record by the petitioner no.3 and extract of Khatauni of 1320F in which except plot nos. 520, 161 and 482, all the remaining plots of the disputed khatas were recorded exclusively in the name of Janki son of Shivdeen. He had further taken note of the fact that late Mahabir had failed to disclose either in his reply filed by him to the objection of the petitioner or in his statement recorded before the Consolidation officer how and on what basis his name came to be recorded in the khatauni of 1333F. He had further taken note of the fact that late Mahabir had failed to disclose either in his reply filed by him to the objection of the petitioner or in his statement recorded before the Consolidation officer how and on what basis his name came to be recorded in the khatauni of 1333F. He had also taken note of the statement of respondent no.6 recorded before the Consolidation officer in which he had deposed that the disputed khatas were acquired by his ancestors and he had been cultivating the same and admitted the share of Tulsiram petitioner no.3 in the disputed khatas but had denied that Ram Autar and his son either had any share in the disputed khatas or they were ever in possession thereof or they belonged to the family of Janki. He further submitted that respondent no.1 having failed to give any reasons in the impugned order for upsetting the findings recorded by respondent no.2 in his order dated 11.08.1978 as well for reversing his order, has clearly acted illegally and contrary to law. He lastly submitted that impugned orders which are bad in law and suffer from illegalities, infirmities and perversities which are apparent on the face of the record cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. 13. Per contra Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the respondent no.1 did not commit any illegality or infirmity in allowing the revision of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and in the process, setting aside the order dated 11.08.1978 of Settlement officer Consolidation, respondent no.2. He further submitted that the respondent no.1 was perfectly justified in holding that the names of Ram Lal father of petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram and Mahabir father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were recorded as co- tenants of the disputed khatas in 1333F and neither the petitioners nor their predecessors had ever challenged the aforesaid entry nor any proceeding was instituted by them or their predecessors for getting the revenue entry recorded in favour of Mahabir in 1333F expunged from the revenue record. 4 and 5 were recorded as co- tenants of the disputed khatas in 1333F and neither the petitioners nor their predecessors had ever challenged the aforesaid entry nor any proceeding was instituted by them or their predecessors for getting the revenue entry recorded in favour of Mahabir in 1333F expunged from the revenue record. He next submitted that on having obtained bhumidhari sanad in respect of 2/3 portion of the disputed khata after depositing ten times of the land revenue Mahabir had become the bhumidhar of the aforesaid portion of the disputed khatas and the petitioner having failed to take any steps for getting the certificate granted in favour of the Mahabir under Section 137 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cancelled under Section 137A of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act within the period of limitation prescribed in this regard, the Settlement officer Consolidation was not at all legally justified in holding that the certificate of bhumidhari sanad granted to the Mahabir under Section 137 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act did not confer any right, title or interest on him over the disputed khatas on account of the revenue entry made in the khata of 1333F showing him and Ram Autar, the father of the petitioner no.3 as co-tenant of the disputed khatas being fictitious. 14. He next submitted that the right if any late Ram Autar father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram had in the disputed khatas stood extinguished after Ram Autar was evicted from some portion of disputed khatas in execution of the decree passed under Section 209 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act instituted against him by Mahabir which had attained finality and on petitioner no.3 giving consent to grant of bhumidhari sanad in favour of late Mahabir in respect of his alleged 1/3 share of the disputed khatas in proceedings under Section 137 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act and hence the claim of petitioners for expunging the name of Mahabeer and declaring them as bhumidhar of the disputed khatas was barred by principles of estoppel, acquiescence and res judicata and the respondent no.2 had committed a manifest error of law in allowing the appeal preferred by them against the well considered order of the respondent no.3. He has lastly submitted that the impugned orders which are based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons require no interference by this Court and this writ petition which lacks merit is liable to be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 16. The dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to khata no. 93 and 41. The only issues which arises for consideration of this Court in this case is that whether the petitioners are the exclusive tenants of the disputed khatas or they are co-tenants of the same along with the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and if the parties are cotenants of the disputed khatas then what are their respective legal shares therein. 17. The following pedigree has been set up by the petitioners for proving their case that the parties descend from a common ancester and the disputed khatas had devolved exclusively upon Janki after the death of common ancestral Shivdeen and after his death on his son Janki through whom the petitioners claim themselves to be the sole tenants of the disputed khatas. 18. The aforesaid pedigree has been disputed by the contesting respondent to the extent that Ram Autar was neither a descendant of the common ancestor Shivdeen nor he had any right, interest, title or share in the disputed khatas. 19. The facts which emerge from the perusal of the pleadings of the parties interalia are that they are descendants of a common ancestor Shivdeen who had two sons, Janki and Bhola; that Bhola had pre-deceased Shivdeen; that the disputed khatas had fallen into the share of Janki in the partition which had taken place between him and his nephew Baijnath; that in 1320F which is the oldest khatauni of the disputed khatas available on record the name of Janki alone was recorded as sole tenant of the disputed khatas; that the name of Mahabir, the father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 came to be recorded for the first time as a co-tenant of the disputed khatas along with the name of Ram Lal father of petitioner no. 3 Tulsiram in the year 1333F; although before 1333F neither the names of Mahavir nor his father Gajodhar or grand father Bhola were recorded as tenant of the disputed khata; that Mahabir had obtained bhumidhari sanad in respect of 2/3 portion of khata no. 3 Tulsiram in the year 1333F; although before 1333F neither the names of Mahavir nor his father Gajodhar or grand father Bhola were recorded as tenant of the disputed khata; that Mahabir had obtained bhumidhari sanad in respect of 2/3 portion of khata no. 41 after depositing ten times of the land revenue and had got himself recorded as bhumidhar of the aforesaid portion of khata no. 41; that the petitioners had neither challenged the entry recorded in 1333F in favour of late Mahabir as co-tenant of the disputed khatas before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings nor the certificate granted to late Mahabir father of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 under Section 136 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act; that late Mahavir had filed a suit for ejectment of Ram Autar under Section 209 U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act from a portion of the disputed khatas which he had illegally occupied and after the aforesaid suit was decreed Ram Autar was ejected from the said portion of the disputed khatas; in proceedings under Section 134, 136 and 137 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act Tulsi Ram had moved an application before the concerned authority stating therein that he had no objection to the grant of bhumidhari sanad in favour of Mahavir in respect of his share in the disputed khatas. 20. As far as the challenge of Mahavir the father of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to the genuineness of claim of Ram Autar being descendant of Shivdeen and as such having no share in the disputed holdings is concerned the same is wholly unsustainable in view of the fact that the Consolidation officer, Settlement officer Consolidation as well as Dy. Director of Consolidation have concurrently held Ram Autar to be the descendant of Shivdeen and co-tenant of disputed holdings and the aforesaid findings have attained finality. 21. The issue whether bhumidhari rights emanating from a certificate issued under Section 137 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be defeated on the ground that the same was illegally issued without being duly cancelled is no longer res-integra and stands settled by a series of pronouncements made by this court. 22. 21. The issue whether bhumidhari rights emanating from a certificate issued under Section 137 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be defeated on the ground that the same was illegally issued without being duly cancelled is no longer res-integra and stands settled by a series of pronouncements made by this court. 22. In Sheo Charan v. Tota Ram and others reported in RD (1970), this Court in paragraphs 12 and 12 of its judgment rendered in the aforesaid case has held as hereinunder :- "12. It is true that the provision of the Act of 1949 are the precursors of the provisions of Sections 134 to 137A of the Act. Nevertheless, the provisions of Sections 134 to 137A of the Act under consideration seem to advance the matter a little further. It is clear that the grant of a certificate under Section 137(1) has the effect of a declaration of Bhumidhari rights under Section 137(2) of the Act. Several cases were cited to show the date from which the person in whose favour the declaration is made or certificate granted could assert those rights. They are : Abdul Latif v. Abdul Hakim (7); Anis Ahmad v. State of U.P. (8) and Bankey Singh v. Dharam Deo Singh (9). These authorities at least show that the declaration contained in the certificate has a strong evidentiary value. It is strong enough for the person holding the certificate to act as a Bhumidhar capable of making transfers. 13. It will also be seen that Section 137A of the Act requires a special procedure for cancellation of the certificate once granted. The grant can only be revoked under the conditions specified in Section 137A. Section 331 of the Act prevents any court, other than that mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, from taking any cognizance of any suit, application or proceeding mentioned in column 3 thereof. I find that an application under Section 134 is mentioned in Schedule II at serial no. 6. A period of limitation is also provided for it in Appendix III to the Rules at serial no. 11A. Thus period is three years from the date when the applicant first knew of the grant of the certificate. The obvious intention of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder was that certificate would be treated as a least prima facie evidence of the Bhumidhari rights of the holder. 11A. Thus period is three years from the date when the applicant first knew of the grant of the certificate. The obvious intention of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder was that certificate would be treated as a least prima facie evidence of the Bhumidhari rights of the holder. Rights declared by it cannot be defeated unless and until it is either duly cancelled or could be shown to be no certificate at all in the eye of law. One can conceive of circumstances in which the certificate may be void or no certificate in the eye of law, but where a special procedure, such as the one mentioned above, is laid down for cancellation of a certificate, I do not find it possible to hold that the effect of the bhumidhari sanad could be ignored." Thus what follows from the reading of the aforesaid law report is that grant of a certificate under Section 137 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act before it was substituted by U. P. Act no. 35 of 1976 and it's first subsection amended by U. P. Act 8 of 1977 had the effect of a declaration of bhumidhari rights under Section 137 of the Act. The grant could only be revoked on the grounds specified in Section 137A of the act which also stood omitted by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 and substituted by Section 136. Rights declared by it cannot be defeated unless and until it was either duly cancelled or shown to be no certificate at all in the eye of law. However the question which arises for consideration before this Court in this case is that even where a bhumidhar sanad is granted in favour of a sirdar on the basis of a settlement entry which itself appears to be fictitious can still be said to confer bhumidhari rights on such tenure-holder on the ground that the same has not been cancelled or revoked. The legal principle enunciated in the case of Sheo Charan (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in support of their claim has no application to the facts of the present case as the same is distinguishable on facts. The legal principle enunciated in the case of Sheo Charan (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in support of their claim has no application to the facts of the present case as the same is distinguishable on facts. In the case of Sheo Charan (supra) the settlement entry on the basis of which bhumidhari sanad was granted to the tenant in the aforesaid case, after being examined by the consolidation courts was found to have been validly made whereas in the instant case we have found that respondent nos. 4 and 5 have failed to bring any material on record showing that the revenue entry made in 1333F showing their father Mahaveer as cotenant of the disputed khatas along with Ram Lal was made in accordance with law after following the prescribed procedure. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 having failed to prove any legal basis for recording of the name of their father in the revenue record as cotenant of the disputed khatas for the first time in the year 1333F, the said entry was not lawful entry and for the same reason Mahaveer was not entitled to claim any right, title, interest or share in the disputed khatas on the strength of the bhumidhari sanad obtained by him in respect of the 2/3 portion of the disputed khatas on the basis of the aforesaid fictitious entry merely because the petitioners had failed to get the certificate issued under Section 136 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act as stood on the relevant date in favour of Mahavir father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 revoked or cancelled under Section 137A of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. 23. The Apex Court in the case of Bachan v. Kankar reported in 1972 RD 219 has held that in order to claim title the entries have to have a lawful introduction in the revenue records. In the instant case there is no explanation on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 as to how their fathers names was recorded in 1333F. In the absence of any authority or any endorsement in the record authenticating the entry of 1333F, the claim of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 appears to be absolutely unfounded. 24. The Consolidation officer as well as Dy. 4 and 5 as to how their fathers names was recorded in 1333F. In the absence of any authority or any endorsement in the record authenticating the entry of 1333F, the claim of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 appears to be absolutely unfounded. 24. The Consolidation officer as well as Dy. Director of Consolidation, respondent nos. 1 and 3 in my opinion clearly erred in law in holding that the claim of petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram for being declared bhumidhar of the disputed khatas was barred by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence in view of his having abandoned his share in the disputed khatas in favour of the Mahabir in proceedings for grant of bhumidhari sanad instituted by Mahabir by moving a written application in this regard before the concerned authority for the simple reason that on the date on which Mahabir had applied for issue of certificate granting bhumidhari sanad in his favour in respect of the disputed khata both Mahabir and petitioner no.3 Tulsiram were recorded as sirdars of the disputed khatas having no transferable rights therein and hence no objection allegedly given by the petitioner in favour of the Tulsi Ram in proceedings for grant of bhumidhar sanad in law amounted to transfer of his interest in the disputed khatas in favour of Mahabir which was not permissible under the law. Similarly the respondent nos. 1 and 3 again erred in coming to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner for being declared bhumidhars of the disputed khatas and for expunging the name of Mahabir recorded in the basic year khatauni as bhumidhar along with petitioners was barred by principle of res judicata. Admittedly petitioner no.3 Tulsiram was not a party to the suit filed by Mahabir under Section 209 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act for ejectment of Ram Autar father of the petitioner nos. Admittedly petitioner no.3 Tulsiram was not a party to the suit filed by Mahabir under Section 209 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act for ejectment of Ram Autar father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 from some portion of the disputed khatas and hence any finding recorded in the aforesaid suit in favour of Mahabir holding him to be bhumidhar of the disputed khata was not binding on petitioner no.3 and notwithstanding the fact that the ejectment decree passed in the aforesaid suit has attained finality qua Ram Autar, the same would not operate as res judicata against the petitioner no.3 Tulsi Ram and once it is found that Mahabir had obtained bhumidhari sanad in respect of the disputed khatas on the basis of fictitious settlement entry, the petitioner no.3 shall been entitled to be declared as bhumidhar of the disputed khatas. Thus in view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find that the claim of the petitioner is barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence and resjudicata. 25. The Settlement officer Consolidation, in my opinion, did not commit any illegality in rejecting the claim of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in respect of share of the disputed khatas in-to by holding that the bhumidhari sanad obtained by their father Mahaveer on the basis of a fictitious entry made in his favour with regard to the disputed khatas in the year 1333F which was not in consonance with law would not confer any right on them to claim co-tenancy rights in the disputed khatas. 26. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside except to the extent the same relate to plot no. 475. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned orders dated 11.08.1978 and 28.07.1980 passed by Consolidation officer, Soraon, Allahabad respondent no.3 and Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad respondent no.1 (Annexure nos. 1 & 3) are hereby quashed to the extent indicated herein above. The order passed by Settlement officer Consolidation dated 11.08.1978 in appeal nos. 555 and 585 is restored except in so far as it relates to plot no. 475. 27. There shall however be no order as to costs.