Surya Bali and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

The Petitioners claim co-tenancy rights and they filed an objection u/s 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act contending that their names deserve to be recorded and the names of the contesting Respondents deserve to be expunged to the extent of exclusion of the Petitioners.

The main contest that was put forth by the Petitioners was on the strength of an alleged compromise followed by a decree in proceedings u/s 59/61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the said compromise and the decree clearly indicate that the Petitioners were accepted as co-tenants and, therefore, the said compromise ought to have been given effect to. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the Petitioners but the same has been reversed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the reversal has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the said decree which is binding at least on the contesting Respondents and the factum of compromise not having been upturned, the Petitioners cannot be denied their rights of co-tenancy.

Learned Counsel has relied upon the Full Bench decision in the case of Ambika Prasad and Ors. v. Kamla Prasad and Anr..1 7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, the said compromise decree dated 16.9.1948 has been found to have never been put into execution and the conduct of the Petitioners has been gauged by the Consolidation Authorities by recording a finding that No. effort appears to have been made to get the said compromise decree executed. It has further been 1. Ambika Prasad and Others Vs. Kamla Prasad and Another, .

found that the proceedings were initiated between the Petitioners and the contesting Respondents without impleading the Zamindar. In such a situation, the decree itself was not binding as No. such Sirdari or Tenancy rights whatsoever were claimed as against the Zamindar. In such a situation, the effect of the decree could not bear any fruit in favour of the Petitioners. So far as, possession is concerned, there is No. indication of the possession of the Petitioners either in 1356 Fasli or in 1359 Fasli, which are the relevant revenue records pertaining to the claim of Sirdari rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

In the absence of any such evidence, in the opinion of the Court, the Petitioners could not have succeeded in claiming Sirdari rights. Apart from this, the contesting Respondents even if have entered into a compromise with the Petitioners as Sirdars had No. authority to co-opt another Sirdar. The said tenancy could not have been claimed prior to abolition of Zamindari against the Zamindar and there being No. such proceedings having been initiated even that right was not available. The finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, cannot be interfered with.

The Full Bench decision, which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, does not come to his aid.

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.