Claims regarding land share must be substantiated by proper procedural evidence; entries in consolidation forms alone do not establish finality in disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. In the present case, father of the original petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”) claiming 3/4 share in land in dispute, whereas the share of contesting original defendants to be distributed in remaining part of share i.e. 1/4.

3. The suit was contested and contesting defendants have filed a written statement denying claim of plaintiff. The claim of plaintiff was essentially based on C.H. Form No. 4, C.H. Form No. 5 and C.H. Form No.45, prepared during the consolidation proceedings as well as Khatauni of 1371 Fasli, where in his share, was shown to be 2/3. During suit proceedings statement of plaintiff was also recorded.

4. The S.D.M. Khurja, District- Bulandshahr decreed the suit by an order dated 23.08.1975, however, claim of plaintiff was admitted only to extent of 1/2 share and not 3/4 as claimed whereas share of contesting defendants was determined as 1/4 share each. The statement of plaintiff/original petitioner was considered against his claim. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

5. The plaintiff being aggrieved by decree, filed a first Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, however, the same was dismissed and decree was confirmed by an order dated 20.12.1975. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

“ I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The claim of the plff. Complainant is based on the entries in C.H. 4 and 5 in which the shares of the Plff. is entered as ¾. Those plots were excluded from consolidation operations. Therefore, the defdt. Had no opportunity of filing objections against these entries. The learned lower court has therefore rightly held that the entries in these forms are not final.

Ram Swarup was admittedly the predecessor in interest of the contesting defendants. He and Dharampal plff. were ejected u/s 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, but subsequently in appeal the order of ejectment was set aside and possession was restored to the present parties as Ram Swaroop had died in the meantime.

I accordingly find that the learned lower court has rightly held that plaintiff appellant has got half share in the land in suit, and dismiss this appeal with costs.”

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, plaintiff filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, however, the same was also got dismissed by an order dated 22.05.1995 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

“ 5 . It is undisputed that the property was originally in the name of Dharampal and Ramswarup. A dispute has arisen regarding ejectment u/s 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Possession was redelivered in favour of Dharampal and Ram Swaroop by the judgment dated 18.11.1950. Thus, the assumption regarding ½ shares on the basis of the judgment by the trial court is flawless. The plaintiff appellant has not been able to establish the basis for his ¾ share in the property. A mere entry in CH-4 and 5 cannot bring finality to the controversy as the shares have not been specifically recorded either in CH-45 or Khatauni 1371f. The oral evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant does not lead to any specific conclusion because of contradictions and vagueness. Dharampal was unable to throw any light on the basis of ¾ share. The defendant also could not establish that the property came to Smt. Sheela, wife of Dungal Mal and Liladhar S/o Ram S