Point of Law: It is worthy to note that on the death of a female bhumidhar succession to holding goes not to her heirs but to "nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar". In other words it is the heirs of the last male-holder and not that of the deceased female bhumidhar who succeed to holding. This would again indicate that her interest in the holding ends with her death.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the private respondents. Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.1.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 29.08.1985 passed by the opposite party no.1 i.e. Joint Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur(here-in-after referred as JDC).

3. The dispute relates to Plots of Gata No.47, situated in Village-Tihra, Pargana-Barosa,Tehsil and District-Sultanpur, which was recorded in the names of the petitioner-Ram Lakhan(now the deceased) and Ram Deen, son of Budhai, and uncle of the petitioner in the basic year. A joint objection dated 23.12.1978 was filed by Smt.Jhabra, the opposite party no.2(now deceased) and Ram Kishun, son of Budhai (now deceased), claiming co-tenancy in the disputed gata. The Consolidation Officer, by means of the order dated 24.11.1980, rejected the claim of Ram Kishun and Har Deen and determined the share of the petitioner as 2/3rd and the opposite party no.2 as 1/3rd in Gata No.47. Two appeals, bearing no. 790 (Ram Lakhan versus Smt. Jhabra and others) and 371 (Ram Kisun versus Ram Lakhan and others), were filed against the order dated 24.11.1980 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the Act of 1953). The appeals were dismissed by means of the order dated 21.05.1981. Hence two revisions, bearing no.1058 (Ram kishun versus Ram Lakhan) and 1059 (Ram Lakhan versus Smt. Jhabra), under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 were filed. The revision of the opposite party no.2 was allowed and the revision of the petitioner was dismissed by means of the order dated 29.08.1985 and the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer have been amended accordingly and share of the opposite party no.2 has been determined as 2/3rd and share of the petitioner as 1/3rd in the land in dispute. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the opposite party no.2 had set up the pedigree in the objection, in which the land in dispute was said to have been acquired by Bankey, and thereafter, the name of his three sons Jokhu, Budhai and Ghoghar were jointly recorded. Subsequently, by amendment in the objection, added 'alias Paltan' with Bankey and 'alias Golan' with Ghoghar, as land in dispute was recorded in the name of Paltan and thereafter in the name of Jokhu son of Paltan. Therefore, merely by adding alias Paltan, the opposite party no.2 does not get right without any proof that Bankey and Paltan were one and the same person, and similarly, Ghoghar and Golan. Ram Harakh son of Jokhu, Budhai son of Bankey and Ghoghar son of Bankey died prior to Jokhu. On the death of Jokhu, Ram Din, Sarva Din and Ram Kishun succeeded in equal share. The objection was filed by the petitioner claiming that the name of Ram Din was wrongly recorded as he never remained in possession. The father of the petitioner;Sarvadeen had separated from his family/brothers and lived with Mahdei, wife of Ram Harakh, son of Jokhu as Ghar Baitha. Some of the plots were acquired by Paltan, who was grand father of Ram Harak. Pedigree given by the petitioner was different, in which Paltan was the original tenant. Thereafter, the land devolved on Jokhu his son, and thereafter, on Mahdei. Thereafter it was settled with Sarvadeen by the Zamindar. As such, he was the sole tenant. The opposite party no.2 was claiming on the basis of Will, which was not proved. The period and rent of the land in dispute was changed and it was not in the same form. Since the land in dispute was acquired by Paltan which had come to the widow of Ram Harakh i.e. Smt. Mahdei, with whom the father of the petitioner had started living. He got the la