The court emphasized the necessity of establishing evidence for claims of co-tenancy and inheritance, ruling that the Deputy Director's findings lacked sufficient support.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri. R. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 02.06.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich whereby it has allowed the revision of the private respondents and set aside the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer, as a result the objections of the private respondents were allowed.

3. During the pendency of the petition, few of parties had expired and the counsel for the petitioners has moved an application for substitution which has been allowed and the legal heirs have been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, the Court shall refer to the parties as they were originally impleaded at the time of filing of the petition.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter.

5. The dispute in question relates to Khata No.111, situate in village Bhoopani, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaisarganj, District Bahraich which was recorded in the name of the petitioners in the basic year Khatauni. With the commencement of consolidation operations, the private respondents no.2 to 5 filed their objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 raising a claim of co-tenancy in respect of the disputed Khata.

6. The contention of the private respondents was that the property in question was inherited by them and it came in their family from their maternal side (Nanihal). It was stated that the petitioners and the private respondents were members of one Hindu joint family and since Gokula Nand was the eldest, hence his name was recorded in the revenue records as Karta of the family. This was opposed by the petitioners who stated that the property in question was self acquired and it was not ancestral and the private respondents did not acquire any right in it. It was also stated that there was no jointness in the family nor the property was acquired by any joint family funds, hence the claim of co-tenancy cannot be claimed.

7. After the parties led evidence, the Consolidation Officer by means of its order dated 10.12.1982 rejected the claim/objections of the private respondents. The private respondents preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which also came to be dismissed by means of order dated 22.03.1984. The private respondents further escalated the matter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by means of its judgment dated 02.06.1986 allowed the revision holding that the property in question belonged to Rokana who was the maternal grand mother (Nani) of the parties and since it was a joint family property, hence it granted co-tenancy rights to the private respondents while allowing the revision. Being aggrieved against the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 02.06.1986, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition.

8. Shri. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a grave error in holding Rokana to be the maternal grand mother whereas there was no evidence led by the parties to establish the aforesaid fact. It was also urged that there was no evidence to the effect as to how the name of Gokula Nand came to be recorded in the revenue records on the basis of inheritance nor there was any mention of any order passed by competent court. The basic necessary ingredients required to plead and prove the claim of cotenancy was also not established yet by ignoring all the aforesaid aspects. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the findings of the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which is apparently erroneous and as such the decision rendered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation deserves to be set aside