Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the two orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has urged that Anant the private respondent no.2 was the son Chhedu and not son of Bihari.

6. It is further urged that in order to usurp the property, Anant got his name fradulantly incorporated showing himself to be son of Bihari. There were interpolation in the Parivar Register which has not been appropriately considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

9. Per contra, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the private respondent no.2 has submitted that the petition is concluded by findings of fact and both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly upheld the claim of the private respondent no.2 and the same does not require any interference.

10. It is further urged that both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have considered the material evidence on record including the Parivar Register and the school leaving certificate wherein the private respondent no.2 Anant was shown as son of Bihari and not son of Chhedu, hence these being pure findings of fact cannot be disturbed in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constittion of India, hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

20. An Attempt was also made by the petitioners to call for such records from Anant but he did not place the same on record. In the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer neither the Parivar Register nor the school certificate nor voter list or other authenticated documents were placed by Anant to establish his parentage and in absence of the same the claim of private respondent no.2 did not find favour with the Consolidation Officer.

21. An extract of the Parivar Register relating to house No.465 was placed on record wherein name of Chhutkau thereafter the name of Chhedu son of Chhutkau, wife of Chhedu Ramkali and name of Anant son Chhedu was placed on record. This was taken note of by the Consolidation Officer, hence it ruled in favour of the petitioners and rejected the claim of Anant vide order dated 29.12.1977.

29. Learned counsel for the respondent also could not indicate that upon the death of Bihari admittedly he was survived by his widow Hardai and at the relevant time Anant was a minor in such circumstances how could the name of Anant be recorded simplicitor without the name of Hardai being recorded as the guardian of Anant and even otherwise as the widow of Bihari Hardi succeed to be a estate and her name also must have been recorded but there was no evidence in this regard.

30. There was a clear discrepancy available on record before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation; inasmuch as in the extract of the Parivar Register relating to House No.465 which indicated the members of the family and Chhutkau which included Anant shown as son of Chhedu and on the other hand there was another extract of the Parivar Register which indicates that Anant as the son of Bihari but this document has several over writings and cuttings. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has not given any reason as to how he preferred to accept the extract of the Parivar Register showing the name of Anant son of Bihari which though had over writing and cutting and which in the opinion of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was also suspicious yet he ignored the impact of the Parivar Register of House No.465.