Heard.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, Ambedkar Nagar by which all the contesting parties have been given equal share in the holding in question which was recorded in the name of Ram Pratrap in the basic year Khatauni.
Ram Pratap was the son of Ram Adhar. Ram Adhar had two wives, namely, Subhagi and Mohana. It has not been disputed by the petitioners that Mohana was also the wife of Ram Adhar, the common ancestor. After the death of Ram Adhar and his wives the holding came to be recorded in the name of Ram Pratap, although, Ram Adhar had two other sons, namely, Ramanand and Babu Ram from Subhagi and six sons from Mohana, as, Ram Pratap was the eldest. Ram Pratap died issue-less. In the consolidation proceedings it is said that the A.C.O. passed some orders on 25.08.1976 by which he divided the share of the sons of Ram Adhar from Subhagi equally. The sons of Ram Adhar from Mohana challenged the said order by filing an Appeal albeit after 7 years annexing therewith a questionnaire mentioning about the passing of an order dated 25.08.1976 and its entry in the requisite consolidation/revenue records. The Appeal was allowed on 16.08.1986 by the S.O.C. which was put to challenge by the sons of Ram Adhar from the other wife by way of a revision which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the S.O.C. with a direction to reconsider the same in accordance with law. The S.O.C. thereafter dismissed the appeal of the sons of Mohana. The matter again went up to the Revisional Court at the behest of the sons of Subhagi and their successions who set-aside the appellate order on the ground that the S.O.C. who had passed the order was not competent nor authorized to do so. Thereafter, for the third time, the S.O.C. passed an order on 23.09.2010 by which he held that on an examination of the records he found that the Appeal had been filed on the basis of questionnaire obtained from the Office of the Assistant Consolidation Officer which mentions about the passing of an order dated 25.08.1976, but, the said order itself is not on record, therefore, he examined the 'Misil Band' register etc. in which the requisite entries of the disputed cases are made as to the date of institution etc. and found that there was no such mention about any such case having been filed/initiated and any order of 25.08.1976 having been passed by the A.C.O. in respect of Khata in question i.e. Khata No. 401. Accordingly, he held that there was no such order dated 25.08.1976 passed by the A.C.O., it was non existent and fabricated, as such, the entry made in favour of the sons of Subhagi based thereon was liable to be struck off. However, instead of putting the matter at rest at that stage and/or remanding the matter back to the C.O. for settling succession to the holding of Ram Pratap who had died issue-less the S.O.C. without discussing the rights and interest of the parties ordered for recording the name of the sons of Mohana along with sons of Subhagi/ their successors in interest in respect of Khata No. 401.
The petitioners herein who were the successors in interest of the sons of Subhagi filed a revision. The Revisional Court thankfully has brought and end to this controversy which has continued for the past about 40 years by looking into the records pertaining to the dispute between the same parties relating to another Khata bearing No. 101 wherein the sons of Mohana have been given rights and interests in the holding of Rama Adhar, (which ultimately came down in the hands of Ram Pratap) equally, along with the sons of Subhagi vide order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 09.03.1971 who was competent at that time and requisite entries have been made based on such order in respect of Khata No. 101, which were never put to challenge by either of the parties. Based thereon the D.D.C. has sustained the operative portion of the S.O.C. order equally dividing the shares in respect of Khata No. 401 between sons of Subhagi and Mohana and their successors in interest.
The D.D.C. has also opined that though the contesting parties were sons of Ram Adhar from different mothers they were real brothers having a common father.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no issues were framed as was required in terms of the earlier orders of the D.D.C., however, on being specifically asked as to whether it was ever the stand of the petitioners that Mohana was not the wife of Ram Adhar, he fairly admitted that it was not so.
The Court also asked the learned counsel for the petitioners if it was ever the case of the petitioners that Khata No. 401 was not recorded in the name of Ram Adhar the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that it was not so. It being so i.e. it is being an admitted fact that Subhagi and Mohana both were wives of Ram Adhar and Khata No. 401 was recorded in the name of Ram Adhar and ultimately came down to Ram Pratap as ancestral property then the conclusion is irresistible that all the sons Subhagi and Mohana would have share therein as has been given by the D.D.C. The petitioners and the private opposite parties being successors of the sons of Subhagi and Mohana have accordingly been given shares correctly. It is too late in the date to dwell into technicalities. Substantial justice has been rendered by the order of the the D.D.C., especially as, the division of shares in respect of another Khata No. 101 in respect of the same village which was also recorded in the name of Ram Adhar the common ancestor was accepted by the parties without any challenge, therefore, the writ petition is lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 R.K.P.