The court upheld that concurrent findings by lower authorities on land ownership are not to be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the need for solid evidence in claims over ancestral versus self-acquired property.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

In the present case there is no serious dispute that rival parties belong to common ancestors.

2. A suit was filed under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950") at the instance of petitioners wherein petitioners were granted 2/3 share whereas contesting-respondents were granted 1/3 share of disputed land.

3. Sri Vishnu Singh and Sri Kuldeep Gaurav, Advocates for petitioners and Sri Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate for contesting-respondents, have fairly submitted that though dispute before consolidation authorities was with regard of number of Gatas and Khatas, however, presently the dispute is only with regard to Khatas No. 176 and 333.

4. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.08.1973 has accepted the arguments of petitioners with regard to above referred two Khatas that it was a self acquired property and by Bakshisnama respondents were granted share to the extent of only 1/3, whereas 2/3 share remained with petitioners.

5. Aforesaid findings returned by Consolidation Officer was disturbed and interfered by Appellate Authority, i.e., Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 13.06.1975. It was held that land of disputed Khatas, referred above, was ancestral property and further reliance was placed on a Kurshinama wherein equal shares were distributed.

6. Above findings returned by Appellate Authority was upheld by Revisional Authority, i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.05.1977. Relevant part of above referred orders are mentioned hereinafter:

Order dated 25.08.1973 passed by Consolidation Officer

"The copy of gift deed dated 06.04.1902 shows that Shifat bibi and Bikanat bibi have admitted half share of Lal Mohd.'s descendants and half of Shah Mohd. Zuved Alam and others have filed an unregistered patta in which one share to Taj Mohd. And Noor Mohd and 2 share to Mohd. Yaseen has been given. They have filed khasra 1345 to 48 Fs. In which 1/3 and 2/3 as referred have been recorded. But the contents of patta itself shows that Lal Mohd. Shah Mohd. lived together and land was acquired by common fund. The contents of patta itself will become contrary if shares are 1/3 and 2/3 as claimed by Zuved Alam and Maqbool Alam. On the other hand the gift deed dated 06.04.1902 was a registered one of which copy is in the file in which half share of each branch wise of Lal Mohd. and Shah Mohd. has been written. This gift deed is also surrender deed as in the end it has been written. But a judgement of the learned Asstt. Collector dated 12.06.69 has been filed in which on the Patta learned Assistant Collector has held 2/3 share to Zuved, Maqbool and 1/3 to Sayeed and others. There is no evidence that any appeal against it has been filed by Sayeed and others. In the same case plot no. 65 was also involved, but Maqbool, Zuved lost and has filed appeal against it, which is abated. The copy of plaint and abatement order have been filed for plot no. 65 only. Hence the finding on patta has become final and from comparative charts these plots are same as in Khata no. 176. Plot No. 65 is also in the same patta. Hence Zuved and Maqbool have 2/3 in that also."

(Emphasis supplied)

Order dated 13.06.1975 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation

^^de:íhu vkfn vihy laa0&17 dh vihydrkZvksa dk dFku gS fd [kkrk ua0 333 esa vafdr xkVk la0&65 teky o deky iq= x.k eqgEen vCnqy jlhn ds uke [kkrk ua0&176 dk Hkkx gSA muds uke banzkt xyr gks x;kA bu nksuksa [kkrksa esa yky eqgEen o 'kkg eqgEen ds gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa 1@2 va'k feyuk pkfg;sA

fo}ku p0v0 us [kkrk ua0&333 ds xkVk 65 dks [