ORDER :- These are two connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They arise out of a consolidation matter. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

2. The relationship of the parties will be clear from the following admitted pedigree:-

3. The dispute between the parties relates to holdings Nor.132, 133, 134 and 135. It appears that there have been earlier litigations between the parties regarding the Khatas in dispute, and one of such litigations was a suit for partition under Section 49, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. That suit was filed by Jagatpal, Dan Bahadur and Ram Bahadur, representing the branch of Sheonath Singh, against Raghuraj Singh, Rudrapal Singh, Rampal Singh and Anantpal Singh, representing the branch of Devidin Singh. Rudrapal Singh filed a written statement wherein he admitted the share of the plaintiffs to be one-half, and one-fourth was claimed as his own share. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit by the Assistant Collector on 18th January, 1950. An appeal against the preliminary decree was filed by Raghuraj Singh and others, which was partly allowed by the Addl. Commissioner on the 12th of June, 1950. He modified the decree of the trial Court in respect of the holdings of village Bishundasour and dismissed the suit in respect of those holdings on the ground that they exclusively belonged to the defendants.

On Second Appeal the Board of Revenue modified the decree of the Additional Commissioner, restored that of the trial Court, and decreed the suit in toto by their order dated 10th February, 1954. That decree became final, inasmuch as no further appeal to the Supreme Court was filed, nor was the judgment of the Board of Revenue challenged by a writ petition. Proceedings for the preparation of the final decree, however, continued, and, it appears that on account of the various objections filed by the judgment-debtors, the preparation of the final decree kept on hanging for a long time, and a second appeal arising out of the proceeding for the preparation of final decree was pending when the village, where the Khatas in question, was brought under consolidation operations by a notification dated 18th August, 1958 under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

4. Two sets of objections were filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer by Rudrapal Singh one in respect of his share in Khata No.135, and the other in respect of Khatas Nos.132, 133 and 134, which were registered as Cases Nos.501 and 512 respectively. Anantpal Singh also filed a separate objection.

5. The Consolidation Officer, following the decision of the Board of Revenue D/- 10-2-1954, allowed the objections of Rudrapal Singh and Anantpal Singh with respect to Khata No.135 but rejected the same with respect to the other Khatas by his order D/- 9-12-1967. The Consolidation Officer treated the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 10-2-1954 as final and conclusive. Against this order of the Consolidation Officer three appeals were filed; two by Rampal Singh and the third by Rudrapal Singh. All these three appeals were disposed of by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by a common order dated 12th October, 1968. He allowed the appeals filed by Rampal Singh in toto and dismissed the appeal of Rudrapal Singh. Rudrapal Singh filed two Revisions (Nos. 954 and 955) and Jagatpal Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh and Dan Bahadur Singh also filed two Revisions (Nos.949 and 950) against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). All the four revisions were disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his common order dated 28th May, 1969, dismissing all the four revisions. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rudrapal Singh has filed writ petition No.1869 of 1969, while Jagatpal Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh and Dan Bahadur Singh have filed writ Petition No.1870 of 1969.

6. Shri N.D. Ojha, appeari

Click Here to Read the rest of this document