High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Madan v. D.D.C. And Other - WRIT - B No. - 58618 of 2007  RD-AH 18509 (30 November 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58618 of 2007
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri V. P. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under.
On death of recorded tenure holder Baijnath, names of respondents no. 3 and 6 his sons and respondent no. 7 his grand son were mutated on the basis of registered ''Will' vide order dated 11.12.1991 passed by Consolidation Officer. After de-notification of the village, an application dated 8.9.2003 was filed by the petitioner claiming that he was also son of deceased Baijnath and the order dated 11.12.1991 was obtained by the contesting respondents behind his back without any notice or opportunity on the basis of forged and fabricated ''Will'. Another application was also filed by one Smt. Patia wife of deceased recorded tenure holder Baijnath stating that his late husband never executed any Will and the name of petitioner being son was liable to be mutated over the property in dispute along with respondents no. 3 to 6. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.5.2004 set aside the order dated 11.12.1991 on the ground that it was passed exparte without following procedure and without issuing notice to the petitioner. Respondents no. 3 to 6 went up in appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 22.2.2005 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.5.2004. Revision filed by the petitioner challenging the appellate order has also been dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2007. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, an affidavit was filed by Smt. Patia stating that she had only four sons, namely, Balram, Sahdeo, Charan Singh and Jagdeo and the petitioner was not her son and misleading her the petitioner obtained thumb impression on blank paper on which objection filed before the Consolidation Officer on her behalf was manipulated by the petitioner.
On the basis of the evidence brought on record in the form of ''Parivar Register', both Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have recorded a categorical finding that petitioner is not son of Baijnath but he is son of one Garib. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected by both the authorities since he failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate that he was son of recorded tenure holder Baijnath.
In view of the findings of fact recorded by Settlement Officer Consolidation and confirmed and by Deputy Director of Consolidation based on analysis of evidence brought on record that petitioner was not son of recorded tenure holder Baijnath but he was son of Garib, the application filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 11.12.1991 has rightly been rejected and I find no infirmity in the same.
Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.