Kanta vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation & Others

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner by means of the instant writ petition is assailing the order dated 2 February 2017, passed by first respondent, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Kanta Vs. Harihar Singh and others), arising from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 25 February 1990 in proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Act. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by all the consolidation courts.

The dispute pertains to Gata No. 131/1 and 132/2 which in the basic year Khatauni is recorded in the name of Ram Dhani, who had no sons, therefore, the petitioner claims to be legal heir of his brother filed objection seeking correction. The respondent filed separate objection claiming to be recorded in the revenue record in respect of property of Ram Dhani. The consolidation courts upon considering the material and evidences led by the parties recorded a finding that admittedly, Ram Dhani died interestate and his name finds recorded in the basic year.

It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that since name of Shiv Nath, father of Ram Dhani and Vishwanath ancestor of petitioner was recorded in 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli as "Sikmi, therefore, it was urged that Vishwnath being brother would get half share belonging to Shiv Nath, consequently, the petitioner would inherit the property in dispute. The consolidation authorities did not find merit in the contention for the reason that the entry ''Sikmi'' would mature into Adhiwasi/Sirdar and since Vishwanath was not recorded either as ''Sikmi'' or ''Sirdar'', therefore, the property in dispute would not devolve upon the petitioner. Shiv Nath was recorded as ''Sikmi'' who had instituted a declaratory suit in 1957 under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act in respect of the property against Ram Dhani which was decreed as per compromise between the parties. In the said suit, Lal Bahadur was defendant and the decree was binding between the parties.

As regard claim of the petitioner, it was recorded that they had no legs to stand as Shiv Nath in the plaint has accepted that Ram Dhani is land-holder in respect of the suit property, therefore, Vishwanath and his legal heir had no Sirdari right in the property in dispute. It is further noted that since the ancestor of the respondent (Harihar and others) were recorded as Sirdar and admittedly the suit was decided in their favour on 5.4.1958, therefore, they were entitled to be recorded in the revenue record. The concurrent finding of fact was recorded by the courts below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to re-agitate the question of fact which has already been determined upon considering the material, evidence and documents available on record. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not enter into disputed question of fact which has attained finality unless perversity is writ large. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.