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.

JUDGMENT :

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 and 14 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.15 and Sri R.R. Upadhyay learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent no.7 on caveat.

2. Under challenge are the three orders passed by the Consolidation authorities dated 04.01.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer whereby the claim of the petitioners seeking co-tenancy rights in Khata no.173 did not find favour and was rejected. This came to be assailed by the petitioners by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the S.O.C by means of the order dated 2.8.2008 which was further escalated before D.D.C but by means of the order dated 30.05.2024 the D.D.C dismissed the revision.

3. Assailing the three orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property-in-question was the ancestral property coming down in the hands of the petitioners from their forefathers namely Ganeshi.

4. It is also the case of the petitioners that their ancestor namely Chhedi had acquired the rights in the said property and also set up the case on the basis of lease/Kabuliyat said to have been executed by Riyasat Kudwar in 1334 fasli (1927 CE).

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the property had been ancestral and all over a period of time it came in the hands of successors and the property being ancestoral the petitioners would have a right in the property. It is also urged that upon the commencement of consolidation operations initially a compromise came to be arrived at between the parties dated 28.02.1988. Against the said compromise, the contesting private respondents preferred a time barred appeal which as per the petitioners was incorrectly allowed by the S.O.C which was assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision which came to be dismissed and the matter was brought in the first round before this Court by means of the writ petition no.741 (Cons) of 2002 (Ram Naresh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors). It is submitted that the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 27.09.2002 and the order of remand passed by the S.O.C was upheld. It is, thereafter, that the matter was considered a fresh before the Consolidation Officer.

6. The contention of the petitioners is that they had filed appropriate evidence establishing their case that their forefathers had the right in the property on the basis of Kabuliyat relating to 1334 fasli and thereafter plots-in-question have come down in the hands of the petitioners and this evidence has not been appropriately considered either by the Consolidation Officer and when this matter was raised in an appeal, the SOC as well as the D.D.C has also not appreciated the aforesaid contentions resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice and the rights of the petitioners in the disputed Khata no.173 has been severely prejudiced.

7. In support of his submissions, he has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Gaya Din (D) through LRS. And others versus Hanuman Prasad (D) Through LRS. And others; 2001 (1) SCC 501 to buttress his submissions regarding the jurisdiction and the powers exercised by the D.D.C to state that the D.D.C had ample power to look into both the the issues of law and fact but it has been ignored, thus, D.D.C has not appropriately exercised his jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Nankoo vs DDC; 1973 RD 158 to submit that in so far as the right of succession is concerned even though a statutory tenant as defined in the Oudh Rent Act, 1886 did not have right to inherit yet by a subsequent amendment the rights were conferred on the legal heirs for a period of 5 years. The counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Chandra Shekhar vs DDC; 2021 (153) 305 RD t