Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 20056 of 1987 Petitioner :- Ram Autar And Others Respondent :- D D C Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Ram Yadav,M N Singh,S C Kushwaha,T. Shanker,V K Singh Counsel for Respondent :- SC,Atul Kumar Upadhyay,S.C. Kushwaha,S.K.Tyagi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Triveni Shanker, counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.K.Tyagi, counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, i.e. respondent no.2 and order dated 26.8.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti i.e. respondent no.1.
The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata Nos. 82 & 83. In the basic year Khatauni, the petitioners were recorded as co-tenure holder along with respondents of Plots No.54/3 included in Khata No.82 and the respondents were recorded as sole tenure holder of Khata No.83. During the consolidation operations in the Village, the petitioners filed objections under Section 9- A(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) claiming to be co- tenure holder along with respondents in Khata No.83 and the sole tenure holder of Plot No.54/3 included in Khata No.82.
The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 11.12.1985 rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding Khata No.82 but accepted their claim for Khata No.83 and held that the petitioners were co-tenure holder along with the respondents of Khata No.83.
The petitioners and the respondents both filed appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation challenging the order dated 11.12.1985 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal filed by the petitioners related to Khata No.82 and the appeal filed by the respondents related to Khata No.83. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his judgement and order dated 13.3.1987 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.
Aggrieved by the order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioners filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. the respondent no.1 who dismissed the said revision through his order dated 26.8.1987. The result of the orders dated 13.3.1987 and 26.8.1987 passed by respondent no. 2 & 1 respectively is that the entries in the basic year Khatauni reflecting the petitioners to be a co-tenure holder of Khata No.82 and the respondents to be the sole tenure holder of Khata No.83 is restored.
The orders dated 13.3.1987 and 26.8.1987 passed by respondent nos. 2 & 1 have been challenged in the present writ petition. During the course of argument the counsel for the petitioners has pressed the writ petition only regarding Khat No.83.
It is apparent from the records that the petitioners and the respondents had common ancestors and before 1322 Fasli the predecessors of the petitioners and the predecessors of respondents were co-tenure holders of Khata No.83. However, the revenue records since 1322 Fasli show that only the predecessors of the respondents were recorded as tenure holder of Khata No.83. It was alleged by the petitioners before the consolidation authorities that the predecessor of the respondents were recorded in representative capacity in the revenue records relating to Khata No.83 since 1322 Fasli as the predecessors of the petitioners and the respondents constituted a joint Hindu Family. The claim of the respondents was that the disputed plots in Khata no.83 had been settled with their predecessors by the Zamindar after 1322 Fasli.
It is also apparent from the records that one Bhagwati Singh, the erstwhile Zamindar of the disputed plots appeared as a witness before the Consolidation Officer and stated that the disputed plots were settled in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners and the respondents jointly as they belonged to a joint family. The predecessors of the petitioners were recorded as Class-9 holder of the disputed plots in the revenue entries of 1372 and 1374 Fasli. The predecessors of the respondents were recorded as the sole tenant of the disputed plots in the revenue records since 1322 Fasli and in 1356 Fasli the predecessor of the respondents was recorded as tenant of the disputed plot since last 30 years i.e. since 1326 Fasli.
It is also noticeable that before the consolidation operations in the Village, the petitioner had filed a suit under Section 229-B read with Section 210 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950) claiming to be the Bhumidar of the disputed plots by adverse possession. However, the proceedings in the aforesaid suit had abated because the Village was notified under the Act, 1953.
The Consolidation Officer after considering the evidence, the oral testimony of Bhagwati Singh and the revenue records relating to 1322 Fasli which showed that the predecessors of the petitioners and the respondents constituted a joint family and also after taking note that the predecessors of the petitioners were recorded as Class-9 holder of the disputed plots in the revenue records relating to 1374 and 1375 Fasli held that the petitioners were co-tenure holders of Khata No.83. However, in the consequential appeals and revision, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the claim of the petitioners and after examining the entries in the revenue records relating to 1356 Fasli and 1322 Fasli held that the revenue entries in 1322 Fasli showed that the disputed plots were settled with the predecessor of the respondents and the entries in 1356 Fasli showed that the disputed plots were under the tenancy of the predecessor of the respondents since 30 years i.e. since 1326 Fasli and therefore held that the petitioners cannot be held to be co-tenants of the disputed plots.
The dispute between the parties before the Consolidation Authorities related to the situation after 1322 Fasli. From a reading of the order of the Consolidation Officer, it is not clear as to whether the testimony of Bhagat Singh stating that the property was jointly settled with the predecessor of petitioners and respondents refers to a situation before 1322 Fasli or to a situation after 1322 Fasli. The statement of Bhagwati Singh is not on record and in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, it has been stated that records relating to the case have been weeded out in the office of the Consolidation Authorities. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to assess the legal significance of the testimony of Bhagwati Singh.
The Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the revenue entries in 1322 Fasli and 1356 Fasli and also after considering that in a previous proceedings under the Act, 1950, the petitioners had claimed adverse possession over the disputed plots thereby admitting the title of the respondents over the same. The aforesaid plea of the petitioners in proceedings instituted under the Act, 1950 explained the revenue entries in 1374 and 1375 Fasli showing the petitioners to be Class-9 holders of the disputed plots i.e. persons in occupation of land without the consent of its owner. In absence of any other evidence, the entries in 1322 Fasli and 1356 Fasli could lead only to the inference that the plots were settled singly with the predecessor of the respondents.
The findings recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order dated 13.3.1987 and 26.8.1987 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 are concurrent findings of facts based on evidence on record. The counsel for the petitioners was not able to show any perversity in the aforesaid findings. Merely because another view may be possible on the same set of evidence cannot be a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 IB