High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Raj & Others v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 7412 of 1973  RD-AH 8696 (8 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7412 of 1973
Ram Raj and others ......... Petitioners
The Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Pratapgarh and others .............. Respondents
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J
There were 4 khatas 28, 217, 95 and 25 of village Masauli in dispute. Khata No. 28 was recorded recorded in the basic year in the names of the petitioners Ram Raj, Dwarika and Ganesh, Amar Nath and Omkar Nath. Khata No. 217 was recorded in the names of Ram Raj, Dwarka, Ganesh, Ram Laht, Devi Prasad and Ram Murti. Over plot no. 718/1 of this Khata No. 217 Ram Dular is entered in possession. Khata no. 95 was recorded in the names of Kade Din and Maha Veer and Khata No.25 was recorded in the name of Bhagwat Prasad.
Objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioners claiming one third share in the property in dispute on the basis of the pedigree. Another objection was filed by respondent Ram Dular claiming title on the basis of possession. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 28.10.1972 directed that the entry of possession of Karedin and Mahabir be expunged over plot no. 718/3 and that the names of Ram Dular son of Mathura be entered and also directed that the names of Karedin be expunged from Khata No. 95 and the names of petitioners Ram Raj, Dwarika, Ganesh sons of Bhagwadin be entered. Against this order, two appeals were filed one by Karedin and other by petitioners. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 5.2.1973. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation two revisions were filed one by Karedin and other by petitioners. The revision of the petitioners has been dismissed and that of Karedin has been allowed. The finding is that before the present proceedings there were two earlier litigations one was in the civil court culminating in a decree in suit no. 195 of 1960 by which suit of Karedin was decreed and the decree was executed and Karedin was put into possession but the defendants again entered into possession. Thereafter Karedin filed a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act which too was decreed and the possession was delivered to Karedin. The finding is that two judgements operate as res judicata.
Shri A.N. Bhargava learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these papers were filed as additional evidence before the Deputy Director of Consolidation without affording opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence in rebuttal. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition. The averments in that paragraph are wholly vague and general in nature and in fact major portion of that paragraph relates to sale deed executed by Ram Laut and Debi Prasad and in the last portion of the said paragraph it has been stated that no opportunity was given to petitioner to rebut the evidence filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was not relevant and has been wrongly relied upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The averment is not specific or connected to the additional evidence taken in the revision of Karedin. The copy of the application for additional evidence and order passed thereon have not been filed. The petitioners have not even filed the copy of the judgements which have been relied upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The finding which the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded that these judgements operate as res judicate is not shown to be erroneous. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the material on record and has recorded the finding in favour of Karedin. The finding is not shown to be vitiated. It was then submitted that Ram Laht has sold the entire land even beyond his share. The petitioners have not filed any material to substantiate his contention that the entire land has been sold. The finding is that Ram Laht has sold the land to the extent of his share and not in excess. Nothing has been shown by the petitioners' counsel to demonstrate that Rm Laut has sold beyond his share. There is also a finding that Ram Dular is in possession. Ram Dular was also examined in the trial court and the courts below have found him to be in possession. The finding is one of fact. No ground for interference with the impugned orders have been made out. Dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.