Continuity of occupancy and ancestral ties substantiate rightful claims to land; absence of legal basis in assertions of sole ownership invalidates challenges.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri A.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed in 1977. Number of parties to litigation have expired and their legal heirs are already on record.

3. According to averments made in writ petition, the dispute relates to plots no. 506/2 and 492 appertaining to Khata No. 176 of Village Khadesar, Pargana Zahoorabad, District Ghazipur.

4. In the basic year names of petitioners were recorded exclusively. Hardeo, Barsati and Dwarika, original-respondents no. 1 to 3, filed objections on the ground that these plots were ancestral property and originally belongs to one Dhanu and all parties belongs to same ancestor. Objections were opposed by original petitioners that they were in long possession of plots in dispute for last 22 years and were recorded as occupants.

5. Consolidation Officer allowed objection of contesting-respondents with regard to plot no. 506/2 and dismissed objection with regard to other plots including plot no. 492.

6. Original petitioners as well as original respondents filed appeals before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Appeals were partly allowed vide order dated 07.02.1974 and plot no. 492 was also declared to be the share of both parties. Petitioners thereafter filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.1976. Both these orders dated 07.02.1974 and 20.11.1976 are challenged in this writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the pedigree which was part of order of Consolidation Officer is not under dispute, however, only on the ground that original respondents were part of pedigree, they were declared to be co-sharer without specifically dealing with revenue records of last 22 years wherein petitioners were mentioned as sole occupants. Learned counsel for petitioners referred relevant part of impugned order that only basis to declare original respondents as co-sharer was that they were part of same pedigree.

8. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents, therefore, I have perused the counter affidavit with the help of Sri A.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State and for reference para 7 of the counter affidavit is reproduced hereinafter:

"7. That the petitioners filed revision against the aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20th November, 1976. The finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was confirmed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the aforesaid pedigree is not disputed between the parties. He further held that plots nos. 506/2 and 492 were recorded in the names of Ajodhya, Billar, Bheli and Khushi Lal sons of Thanu as occupancy tenancy in the settlement of 1288F. He also held that in Khatauni 1359F. the plots in dispute were recorded in the names of the petitioners as occupancy tenants in Zaman 6. there is minor difference in the area but it is established that the land in dispute was the occupancy tenancy from the time of the settlement and is coming down in the identical form. The contention of the petitioners that its continuity and identity had been broken is not correct. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further held that the settlement area of plot no. 506 in the settlement was 17 biswas, 5 dhoors but in the basic year the a