Court upheld findings of lower authorities stating that the inability to prove family partition and validity of respondents' title under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prevailed, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention in factual determinations.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

This writ petition is pending before this Court since 1977.

2. Facts of present case are that -:

i. The dispute arose during consolidation proceedings regarding three khatas no. 47, 49, and 73 of village Rajanpur, Pargana Bhadaon, Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia.

ii. It is not in dispute that in basic year, khata no. 47 was recorded in the names of Jokhan, Sahdeo, Mahadeo, Gangadeen all s/o Ammar, opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and khata no. 49 was recorded in the name of Ram Dhani, Dhanpat s/o Ganga Rai and Marchhu and Parsu, s/o Rampat, opposite parties no. 5 to 8 and khata no. 73 was recorded in the names of Ram Dhani, Dhanpat s/o Ganga Rai and Marchhu and Parsu s/o Rampat.

iii. During consolidation proceedings, petitioners have filed their objections mainly on the ground that it was their ancestral land and it was alleged that above referred three khatas were given to them in a family partition which took place on 03.10.1945 as well as that Vasi Ahmad died in the year 1947, therefore, petitioners no. 1 and 2 being his minor sons and petitioner no. 3 being his widow were disabled. The respondents were allowed to use land in dispute for agricultural purpose only and that after U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "Act of 1950") came into force, respondents could have accrued right of asaami only and not more and due to disability, petitioners have right to object the possession of respondents.

iv. Objections were opposed by respondents mainly on ground that no partition took place. Respondents were kastkar of jamindar who had never objected their possession and by virtue of proclamation of Act of 1950, they became adhivasi and thereafter sirdar.

3. The Consolidation Officer has framed following issues -:

^^1 & D;k Jherh rbZeqfulk csok olh vgen csok gS rFkk fML,cYM gS

2 & D;k edlwn vgen egewn vgen iq= olh vgen ukckfyx FksA D;k ;g fML,cYM FksA

3 & D;k oknh x.k vkjkth futkbZ ds Hkwfe/kj gS vkSj gS rks mldk vlj\

4 & D;k xkVk ua0 309 ckx gSA

5 & D;k izfroknh x.k dCtk eq[kkyQkuk dh fcuk ij lhjnkj gks x;s gSA**

4. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 11.05.1973 has returned findings on above referred issues and held that petitioners were disabled and respondents were only taking care of land in dispute and could only be declared asaami and not sirdar. Relevant findings on issues are quoted below -:

^^bZlw ua0 1 & Jherh r;oqy fulk oknh ds 'kkSgj Jh olh vgen 1949 esa QkSr gks x;s Fks vkSj blds f[kykQ izfroknh x.k us uk dqN dgk gS uk bldh rjnhn dh gSA blfy;s ,d okr iw.kZr% lkfcr gS fd 1949 esa Jh erh rgcqy fulk csok gks xbZ FkhA

bZlw ua0 2 & Jh edlwn vgen dh rkjh[k iSnkb'k 02-09-1948 fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA rFkk egewn vgen dh rkjh[k iSnkbZ'k 02-08-1948 fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA vkSj bldks lkfcr djus ds fy;s lfVZfQdsV ;qukuh frY;k dkyst bykgkckn rFkk Vh0lh0 ds fdl Ldwy ft-lkju dk fn[kk;k x;k gSA bl xzke esa /kkjk 4 dk iz[;kiu 1965 esa gqvk gSA vkSj budh vk;q 17 o 16 lky dh gksrh gSA blfy;s ;g Hkh lkfcr gSA fd Jh edlwn vgen o egewn vgen pdcUnh 'kq: gksus ds lkFk rd ukckfyx Fks vkSj mlds f[kykQ Hkh dksbZ rjnhn ;k dksbZ lcwr bl ckr dks xyr lkfcr djus ds fy;s izfroknh x.k dh rjQ ls ugh fn;k x;k gS blfy;s ;g ckr lkfcr gS fd edlwn vgen o egewn vgen ukckfyx Fks rudhg blh izdkj rS dh xbZA

bZlw ua0 4 & xkVk 309 [krkSuh 1359 Q0 esa ckx ntZ gSA vkSj ;g ckr QjhdSu dks rlyhe Hkh gS fd ;g Hkwfe ckx gSA dksbZ Qjhd ;g ugh dg jgk gS fd ;g xkVk 309 ckx ugh gS vr% xkVk 309 ckx gS rudhg blh izdkj r; dh xbZA

bZlw ua0 5 & 3 ,aM 5 vkifRr dks f[kykQ c;ku rgjhjh dsoy tks[ku] cPpu] jke/kuh] us fn;k gS vU; fdlh [kkrsnkj ds dksbZ gLrk{kj c;ku rgjhj ij ugh gSA