ORDER:- The petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the order dated 14-7-1970 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the dispute between the petitioners and opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 was with respect to Khata No. 48. In the basic year opposite parties Ali Husain, Nizarnuddin and Mohd. Nazir were recorded as tenants of the disputed Khata which had 18 plots with an area of 17 Bigha, 5 Biswa and 12 Biswani. The petitioner claimed co-tenancy over the land in dispute with 1/3rd share each. The pedigree set out is as under:-

The dispute was referred to the Consolidation Officer who vide his order dated 30-12-1968 dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioners. They filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who vide his order dated 14-7-1969 partly allowed the appeal inasmuch as he declared the petitioners to be the Sirdars over the plots Nos. 652 and 759 on the basis of adverse possession. This is Annexure-2. The petitioners as well as the opposite parties filed revisions against the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 14-6-1970 allowed the revision filed by the opposite parties and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come up before this Court by means of this petition.

3. The petition has been contested on behalf of the opposite parties and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to

3. It is asserted in the counter-affidavit that Mohd. Hussain, father of the opposite parties alone in 1332 F. was admitted over the disputed Khata and that Mohd. Raza had been ejected by the then Zamindar. It is further asserted that there was fresh contract for plots Nos. 208 and 272 in the year 1333 F. which is evident from the Khetaunis of 1332 F. and 1344 F. In 1344 F. all the plots excepting plots Nos. 208 and 272 are recorded in the name of Mohd. Husain alone with a duration of 15 years and with respect to plots Nos. 208 and 272 Mohd. Husain's name is recorded with a duration of 12 years. It is asserted that in Muslim law there is no provision of representative capacity and joint family. The land cannot be taken by a Mohammadan in a representative capacity. In short, an effort has been made to support the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation being legal, just and proper.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in 1344 F. Mohd. Husain is entered as "Waris over plots Nos. 208 and 272. On this basis he maintained that the name of Mohd. Husain was recorded over these plots as an heir of Mohd. Raza and as such the petitioners were entitled to the share and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no right of inheritance under the Oudh Rent Act. Moreover, there is also clear indication that Mohd. Raza had been ejected. If this was so then the disputed khata was obviously resettled by the then Zamindar. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no capital can be made out from this entry of "Waris". That being so, unless it was clearly established by the evidence on record that Mohd. Husain had inherited the property from his ancestors, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners had any share in the property on the ground of relationship. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a clear cut finding that the disputed Khata was settled afresh, in the name of Mohd. Husain sometime in 1333 F. He has further observed that there is nothing on the record to show that the land was taken in the representative

Click Here to Read the rest of this document