Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Amar Nath And Others - Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. And Others - Respondents
Writ B. No.3670 Of 1988
Decided On : 13-05-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Manish Kumar, J.)
1. Heard Sri P. V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing-Counsel for the State and Sri Narendra Gupta, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent no. 3, 4, 5 & 6 had died and their legal heirs/representatives have been substituted (hereinafter referred to as the respondents)
3. The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned appellate order dated 18.08.1993 as well as impugned revisional order dated 14.01.1988.
4. The petitioners are sons of Ram Charitra, who was the son of Jai Karan and Jaikaran was the third son of Gajadhar hence, petitioners are great grandson of Gajadhar whereas respondent no. 3 is the son of Ram Adhin, who was the second son of Gajadhar, respondent no. 4 was the son of Ram Kumar, who was the third son of Ram Adhin and respondent nos. 5 & 6 were the daughters of Saliq Ram, who was the first son of Ram Adhin, as such respondent no. 3 was the grand son of Gajadhar whereas respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 were great grandson/great granddaughters of Gajadhar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute is with regard to different Gata numbers in Khata no. 226 that is Gata Nos. 1003/2, 1788, 1258/1, 1280/1392, 1123, 915/1, 923/2, 1000/1, 1299/2, 1245/1 & 1283 total area about 12 Bighas. The Gata numbers were in the original tenancy of the great grandfather of the petitioners namely Gajadhar.
6. It is further submitted that in the year 1974-75, the village had come under consolidation. The names of the petitioners were entered in C.H. Form 2A as per Rule 21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1954) after the test and verification of the annual register as prescribed under the Rules on field to field partal of all the plots.
7. It is further submitted that when the names of the petitioners were not found in subsequent documents, the petitioners filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1953), which was decided in favour of the petitioners by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 12.01.1982.
8. It is further submitted that against the order dated 12.01.1982, the respondents had preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 18.08.1983. Against the appellate order, the petitioners had approached the revisional authority by filing a revision which was dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.1988, hence, the present writ petition has been preferred.
9. It is further submitted that the appellate court and the revisional court had failed to appreciate that the names of the petitioners were in the C.H. Form 2A at the time of partal but accepted the contention of the respondents that the land in dispute is the self acquired property of Ram Adhin, the predecessor of the respondents and not the ancestral property of Gajadhar, the great grandfather of the petitioners. Hence the impugned judgments/orders passed by the appellate court and the revisional court are liable to be quashed.
10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Narendra Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the Gata numbers as mentioned above were entered in the name of Gajadhar in Ziman 5 i.e. no one has any hereditary right on such property.
11. It is further submitted that the land on which the present petitioners are claiming their rights are Gata no. 46, 93, 119 & 24 total area about 3 bighas in Khata no. 226 which is entered in the name of Ram Adhin as it was acquired by Ram Adhin, the father of respondent no. 3 and grandfather of the rest of the respondents.
12. It is further submitted that the identity of the holdinghas been changed and it cannot be said that it is an ancestral property for claiming the co-tenancy in the same.
13
To establish co-tenancy rights, claimants must prove that the ancestral holdings have remained intact and unchanged; drastic changes negate such claims.
To establish co-tenancy rights, it must be shown that property has come down intact from a common ancestor without change in identity.
The onus of proving property as ancestral lies with the claimant, requiring evidence of purchase from Joint Hindu Family funds, not merely acceptance of a family tree.
The burden of proof lies with petitioners to establish their lineage and co-tenancy rights, which they failed to do, resulting in dismissal of the petition.
The burden of proof for exclusive property rights lies with the claimant, and mere entries in records are insufficient to establish ownership without supporting evidence.
The burden of proof in claims of co-tenancy rests on the claimant, and insufficient evidence can result in the rejection of such claims.
Continuity of occupancy and ancestral ties substantiate rightful claims to land; absence of legal basis in assertions of sole ownership invalidates challenges.
To establish co-tenancy rights over ancestral property, the unchanged identity of the land throughout generations must be shown, which was not proven in this case.
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.
To establish co-tenancy rights in ancestral property, claimants must prove the unbroken identity of the holding over time, which the petitioners failed to do.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
