Phoolchand Yadav and Others vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, Mau and Others

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Yadav, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 3. The writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is directed against the order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 14.12.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

Initially three separate objections were filed by the respondents 3 to 8 regarding the land of Khata Nos. 29, 178 and 179. However, the dispute in the instant writ petition pertains to only three plots of Khata No. 178 of Mauja Chaubepur, Pargana Ghoshi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau.

Khata No. 178 consisted of five plots, namely, plot Nos. 31, 32, 799, 808 and 811. In the objection filed as regards this Khata the objectors claimed co-tenancy to the extent of 2/3rd. It was also claimed that Smt. Geniya Devi widow of Fenku had remarried and, therefore, her name was liable to be expunged. It is relevant to note that in the basic year Khata No. 178 was recorded in the name of Phoolchand son of Dukhanti and Smt. Geniya Devi widow of Fenku under class 2.

The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 28.4.1978 dismissed the objection as regards Khata No. 178.

The consequential appeal being Appeal No. 806, which alone was pressed by the contesting respondents, was allowed in part. Three plots of this Khata, namely, plot Nos. 31, 32 and 799 were held to be ancestral property and the objector-appellants were granted share therein. As regards the remaining two plots, namely, plot Nos. 808 and 811, the appeal was dismissed.

Against the appellate order, the petitioners preferred Revision No. 609. Another revision being Revision No. 502 was filed by respondent No. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed both the revisions by the order dated 3.9.2014. This order has been challenged by the petitioners alone by means of this writ petition and, therefore, this writ petition pertains to Revision No. 609 alone.

From the facts noticed above, it emerges that the objection of the contesting respondents regarding Khata No. 178 was two fold. First that they were co-sharers therein to the extent of 2/3rd and secondly that Smt. Geniya Devi had remarried and, therefore, her name was liable to be expunged therefrom.

The Consolidation Officer recorded a categorical finding that Smt. Geniya Devi had not remarried. This finding has not been upset by either the Appellate or the Revisional Courts. These two Courts have granted co-tenancy in three of the plots of Khata No. 178 on the finding that the common ancestor was recorded over these plots and, therefore, these plots were ancestral. As regards the remaining two plots, it has been recorded that the objectors failed to file any evidence to show that these two plots were ancestral. Only a Panchyatnama has been filed, which has been discarded by the Courts below on the reasoning that the same was not registered nor had been proved in accordance with law.

The primary ground of challenge to the grant of co-tenancy in plot Nos. 31, 32 and 799 of Khata No. 178 is that the Khatauni of 1353 Fasli was not available. Reliance upon a report of the Revenue Record Keeper, Mau has been filed in support of this contention.

The claim of the petitioners in the writ petition is that the aforesaid three plots were the sole acquisition of Dukhanti, the father of the petitioner No. 1 and father-in-law of petitioner No. 2. It is therefore the case of the petitioner that co-tenancy has been granted relying upon the entry in Khatauni of 1353 Fasli, which Khatauni was not available and, therefore, the judgments of the two Courts below are vitiated.

I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.

It emerges from the perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he has upheld the claim of the contesting respondents for co-tenancy over three plots of the disputed Khata relying upon the entry in 1356 Fasli, wherein the contesting respondents have been recorded in possession for a period of 8 to 23 years. It therefore clearly stands established on record that the contesting respondents were recorded occupants over the three plots, wherein co-tenancy has been granted from long before 1356 Fasli. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has categorically observed that there is no material on record that would render this entry doubtful insofar as it records the period of occupation from 8 to 23 years and has therefore dismissed the revision.

I find no illegality in the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as also the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in this regard. If, it is accepted that the Khatauni of 1353 Fasli was not available, the fact that the contesting respondents were recorded over plot Nos. 31, 32 and 799 and the period of occupation was shown to be from 8 to 23 years in the Khatauni of 1356 Fasli the findings returned in this regard cannot be faulted with and for the same reason, the writ petition calls for no interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merits.