Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1, 2 & 3 and Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S. Niranjan on behalf of respondent no.4.
In proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the Consolidation Officer, on basis of an alleged compromise between the parties, divided their shares by order dated 7.11.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation contending that he never entered into any compromise and consequently, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 7.11.2009 be set aside. It was also the contention of the petitioner that his share in the joint holding is much larger as compared to that determined by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the alleged compromise. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 19.12.2013 allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 7.11.2009. It held that the petitioner will have 3/4th share in Gata Nos.137, 138, 139 and the remaining 1/4 will go to Shiv Lal and after his death to respondents no.4 to 12.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the determination of the share made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by impugned order dated 29.9.2016 has dismissed the revision.
The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit property comprising of Arazi No.137, 138, 139 was jointly purchased by Sukh Nandan and Shiv Sharan (the petitioner). According to him, after the death of Sukh Nandan, since he had no issues and, therefore, the property devolved on the petitioner by survivorship under Section 175.
On the other hand, Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 contended that Section 175 will not come into play as the other heirs namely the brothers were alive and they will inherit the share of Sukh Nandan in view of the provisions of Section 171 of the Act.
Section 175 of the Act contemplates that where a co-tenure holder dies leaving no heir entitled to succeed under the provisions of this Act, his interest in such holding shall pass by survivorship. Thus, the share of Sukh Nandan could devolve on the petitioner only if he had died leaving behind no heir entitled to succeed under the provisions of the Act. It is not disputed before this Court that Sukh Nandan died some times in the year 1960. At the relevant time, under Clause (f) of Section 171, the brother of a deceased tenure holder has been given right of inheritance. In such view of the matter, after the death of Sukh Nandan, his half share was inherited by his brothers jointly namely, the petitioner and Shiv Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.4 to 12 in equal share and not by the petitioner exclusively. Such being the position, this Court does not find any illegality in the view taken by the revisional court.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 9.11.2016 SL