Heard the counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.9.2006 passed by the Additional Collector (First), Varanasi in Case No.13/24/51 of 2003 registered under Section 229-B of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 at the instance of the petitioner and the orders dated 10.4.2008 and 19.4.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Varanasi Division, Varanasi and the Board of Revenue respectively in dismissing the consequential first appeal and second appeal filed by the petitioner.
Admittedly, Kharbhan was the common ancestor of the parties and was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots. Kharbhan died on 29.7.1930. Mahavir was one of the grandsons of Kharbhan. Petitioner as well as respondent nos. 16 and 17 are the sons of Mahavir. The petitioner claims himself to be a co-tenure holder of the disputed plots being the great grand son of Kharbhan. The petitioner instituted Case No.13/24/51 of 2003 praying to be declared a co-tenure holder of the disputed plots along with the defendant/respondents as his name was not recorded in the revenue records. It is apparent from the record that the name of the petitioner was also not recorded in the revenue records of 1356 Fasli. The claim of the petitioner was opposed by the defendant/respondents on the ground that in 1944 there was a partition between Mahavir and other descendants of Kharbhan and as a consequence of the said partition, Mahavir got 1/3 share in the plots of which Kharbhan was the tenure holder and had been compensated for the land area not given to him in the partition. It was stated that subsequently, Mahavir had executed a sale deed transferring the share given to him in the disputed plots in favour of one Hafizullah, S/o Sanaullah. The partition as pleaded by the defendant/respondents was proved by the defendant/respondents in the trial court and the trial court after recording a finding regarding the partition in 1944 and that Mahavir had sold his share to Hafizullah, dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. While dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner, the trial court also recorded its finding that the petitioner had not been able to rebut the entries of 1356 Fasli which were a consequence of partition in 1944 between the descendants of Kharbhan as pleaded by the defendant/respondents. The said findings have been affirmed by the appellate courts. Interestingly, in the appellate Court, Ghoore Lal and Kanhaiya Lal i.e., respondent nos. 16 & 17, who are brothers of the petitioner and had supported him till the first appellate court, also filed an affidavit admitting the case of the defendant/respondents as well as the sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner. It is also interesting to note that Mahavir i.e. the father of the petitioner died in 1989 and never instituted any proceedings claiming any rights in the disputed plots.
The findings recorded by the Court below are concurrent findings of fact based on evidence on record and the Court does not find any perversity in the same. Merely because a different view is possible on the same set of evidence cannot be a ground for interference under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 IB