Allahabad High Court
Ori S/O Ghurhoo vs D.D.C.& Others on 10 August, 2010
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2910 of 1974 Petitioner :- Ori S/O Ghurhoo Respondent :- D.D.C.& Others Petitioner Counsel :- V.B. Khare Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,N.P. Misra,Shyam Lal Yadav Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Despite the fact that the case has been taken-up in the revised no one appears on behalf of the respondents.
In the basic year records the petitioner Ori was alone recorded over the land in dispute. Objection was filed by Jhagroo and Ram Samujh claiming co-tenancy rights over the Khata in dispute. The admitted pedigree is as follows :
Fagoo 1
--------------------------------------------------------1 1
Ghurahoo Sheodatt 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1 1
Garib Jaishree Ramnath 1 1 ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jagat Bhola Madhuban Rajbali Sarjoo Ramji 1 1 1 1 1 ----------- Algoo Bishwanath Jattan Paras 1 1 Jamuna Jhagroo 1 Ram Samujh 2
The Consolidation Officer after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the objector Jagroo and Ram Samujh had utterly failed to establish firstly that the land was coming from common ancestors Fagoo and secondly that the identity of the plots had been changed as the area had substantially reduced. The appeal filed by the objector Ram Samujh and Jagroo was also dismissed. However on revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and held that the Jagroo and Ram Samujh would be entitled to co-tenancy right with the petitioner-Ori.
From the perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it appears that he has passed the order on assumption. No specific finding has been recorded with regard to the identity of the plots coming down from the common ancestors. He has further not upset the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation that there had been a partition between the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the respondents. The Deputy Director does not record any finding that the land in dispute was coming down from the common ancestor Fagoo. He has only assumed that merely because there had been a compromise between the parties with regard to land situate in other village as such objector Ram Samujh and Jagroo would be entitled to similar treatment with regard to the Khata in dispute.
In the opinion of the Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in allowing the revision without upsetting the finding of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation and further failed to take into notice the fact of the partition arrived at between predecessor in interest of the parties as a result of which the land in dispute had fallen in the share of the father of Ori.
In view of the above discussion, writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Judgment and order dated 26.04.1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur is hereby quashed and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation stand restored.3
Records will be corrected accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Order Date :- 10.8.2010 SS