The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot overturn prior adjudications or consent decrees without clear evidence of error or perversity in the original findings.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Shri O.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anand Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present case is arising out of two objections filed by Alibas, Dost Mohammad, Neur, Rasool sons of Idu and Smt. Dukhni, daughter of Bullah @ Billar under Section 9 -A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, of 1953”) in regard to Khata No.142 of Village- Kanchanpur, District-Deoria.

3. First set of objection filed by 4 brothers was based on a claim of co-tenancy being on ancestral property, whereas second set of claim was based on sole tenancy.

4. The Consolidation Officer, Deoria as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected both objections vide orders dated 23.1.1976 and 8.3.1976 respectively and held that land in suit would remain in the name of legal heirs of deceased Ali Hasan and his three sons i.e. original petitioners herein that they shall have undivided share of 1/3rd part of land in suit.

5. Objections filed by Dost Mohammad and others was rejected on a ground that land in suit was never remained an ancestral land and held that Ali Raza who was recorded in Khata No.1359. (Original tenure) has compromised with Ali Hasan father of petitioners herein in a Suit filed under Section 229 -B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and a (Consent Decree) was prepared on 5.10.1957 and Ali Hasan was declared as Bhumidhar.

6. The objection of second set i.e. of Smt. Dukhni was rejected on ground that she failed to prove that she was daughter of deceased Marchia and she was not able to prove that she was either a Sirdar or a co-tenure. Relevant part of both the orders are reproduced hereinafter:

Order dated 23.7.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer.

7. Both the orders dated 23.1.1976 and 8.3.1976 were challenged by way of filing two appeals, which were rejected by a common order dated 30.11.1976 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, upholding the reasons given by the Consolidation Officer.

8. It was held that Ali Hasan became bhumidhar on basis of a Consent Decree dated 05.10.1957, therefore, claim of Dost Mohammad and other co-tenure holders was rightly rejected.

9. The appeal filed by Smt. Dukhni (respondent/since deceased) was rejected by upholding a finding returned by Consolidation Officer that she was not able to prove that she was daughter of deceased Marchia. Relevant part of the said order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is mentioned hereinafter :-

10. Aforesaid order was thereafter challenged by filing two revision petitions before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, who vide order dated 22.08.1978, allowed both revision petitions and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation in regard to objection and appeal filed by Dost Mohd. were set aside and it was held that he will be entitled to 1/5th share of the land in suit. By the same order, Revision Petition filed by Smt. Dukhni (since deceased) was disposed of and matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide her objection afresh by framing an issue on inheritance. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :-

11. Aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by way of filing present writ petition in the year 1978. This Court vide order dated 23.09.1978 granted stay. During pendency of this writ petition, both respondents i.e. Dost Mohammad and Smt. Dukhni died and their respective legal heirs were brought on record. This writ peti