JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Litigation Before Commencement of Consolidation Proceedings

It was not seriously disputed by rival parties that land in dispute is Plot No. 2157, area 3.74 acres, corresponding old No. 2023 and 728 in 1292 Fasli in Village Bari Gaon Tappa Bankat, Pargana Unwal, Tehsil Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur and predecessors in interest of petitioners have planted trees with permission of then Zamindar (predecessors-in-interest of contesting-respondents).

2. In the year 1887 a suit was filed by predecessors in interest of petitioners against then Zamindar which was decreed in terms of a compromise on 07.02.1887. It was accepted that 62 trees belongs to Nohar, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners.

3. In the year 1911, lots were prepared, wherein predecessors in interest of petitioners got 5/9 share, whereas predecessors-in-interest of respondents got 4/9 shares. Thereafter the village was brought under consolidation proceedings. A dispute still left, whether share was limited to number of trees or it has included the land also as well as its legal effect, if any.

4. A suit was filed which was dismissed. Appeal thereof was allowed and second appeal against appellate order was abeted on 28.09.1961.

Litigation After Commencement of Consolidation Proceedings

5. On commencement of consolidation proceedings, petitioners were recorded as co-bhumidhars alongwith contesting-respondents. During consolidation proceedings Respondents-3 and 9 have filed objections under Section 9 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") claiming exclusive bhumidhari right.

6. The Consolidation Officer has rejected objections vide order dated 23.04.1973 and claim of petitioners being co-owner was accepted. The Consolidation Officer has framed issues and relevant findings thereon are reproduced as under:

^^mijksDr lcwr ls ;g Li"V gS fd QfjdSu ds iwoZtksa dk le>kSrk 1887 esa gks x;k rFkk ;g ckx FkhA ;|fi le>kSrs esa tehu ugha feyh FkhA ysfdu tks ckx Fkh vkSj mlesa fgLls caVs rc dksbZ otg esa ugha le>rk fd tehu esa fgLlk u feyk gksA rFkk mijksDr d vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu.kZ; ij igqaprk gwa fd jke iky flag vkfn dh ;g fgLlk rugk dh Hkwfe/kjh dh ckx ugha gSA njxkgh vkfn ds uke QthZ ntZ ugha gSA cfYd njxkgh vkfn lg [kkrsnkj gS] rFkk blh ds vuqlkj on fcanq 1 ls 3 rd dk fu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gSA**

(Emphasis supplied)

7. The Contesting-Respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 29.01.1974 and relevant findings thereof are reproduced hereinafter:

^^vr% njxkgh vkfn vius dh ckxnkj lkfcr djuk gSA mUgksaus 1867 Q0 dh udy dqjkZ nkf[ky fd;k gS] ftlesa <+ks<+k dk uke 728 ij ntZ gSA fo}ku odhy us dgk fd ekStwnk ckx dh 728 dgh iqjkuh ckx gS] vkSj og <+ks<+k] njxkgh ckn ds ewfjl gS og ckxnkj] fdudy dqjkZ esa ckx <+ks<+k ntZ gSA <+ks<+k us bl uacj dk tqt jdok mfnr daoj dks dj fn;k Fkk vr% blds lk/kkj ij 1262 Q0 esa tfj, [kjhnxh mfnr dqaoj ds uke ntZ gq, ysfdu mfnr vkfn us eqlYye [ksoV vius uke ntZ djk fy;kA blds ckn eq0u0 8 lu~ 1887 nk;j fd;k x;k fd xyr [ksoV rS;kj djk fy;k x;k gS] vkSj pwafd mfnr dqaoj gh 07-02-1887 dks bldk iV~Vhnkj rFkk [ksoVnkj Fkk mlds rFkk ukSgj ds chp esa le>kSrk gks x;kA muds vuqlkj <+ks<+k ds oa'kt dks 62 isM+ feysA mUgksaus dgk fd 1911 dk dqdkZ nj[rku bl lqygukes ds vuqlkj gqok gS] vkSj gohc vkSj Qdhj vkfn ds uke Hkh ntZ gSA blds vuqlkj njxkgh vkfn blds ckxnkj gSA vkSj 1887 esa fd;k gqvk lqygukek i{kksa ds Åij ikcanh