High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Moorat v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - B No. 57358 of 2006  RD-AH 17782 (16 October 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57358 of 2006
State of U.P. & Others........Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Pal holding brief of Sri Amrendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anuj Kumar appearing for Gaon Sabha.
The dispute relates to plots no. 1434 and 1435 (old nos. 5421 and 5422 respectively) situate in village Sawayan, Pargana Anguli District Jaunpur. In the basic year, plot no. 1434 was recorded as ''bhita' whereas plot no. 1435 was recorded as ''talab'. The name of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 to 10 were recorded in Class VI of the Khatauni. During consolidation operation, two objections were filed by the petitioner and respondents no. 3 to 10 claiming ''bhumidhari' rights over the plots in dispute on the ground that said plots were in occupancy-tenancy of their ancestors who constructed Talab and planted groves as such after abolition of zamindari they had become bhumidhars. The Consolidation Officer consolidated both the objections. In support of his case, the petitioner filed copy of ''bandobasti khasra' of 1291 F with regard to the said plots, which goes to show that the name of one Naulasa Kunwar was entered in possession over the said plots. With regard to plot no. 5421, there is entry of certain trees. The Consolidation Officer found that except producing said two documents; the petitioner has failed to produce any other evidence, which may go to establish the title of the petitioner over the disputed plots. In so far as title of the trees standing over the plot in dispute is concerned, the Consolidation Officer has recorded a finding on the basis of spot inspection report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer that all the trees have been recently planted and thus denied the right of the petitioner over the trees also. The same finding has been confirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The only evidence adduced by the petitioner was khasra of 1291 F which went to show that one Naulasa Kunwar was in possession over the plots in dispute. Apart from above document, no other evidence was brought on record which may have gone to establish that plots in dispute were in occupancy-tenancy of the ancestors of the petitioner.
In the absence of any evidence brought on record by the petitioner, his claim has rightly been rejected by all the three courts and there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order.
The 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.