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.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Ram Kushal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the private-respondents as well as Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the State.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 16.05.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 02.01.1988 was affirmed, as a consequence, the claim of the petitioners claiming exclusive rights was rejected and the claim of the private-respondents claiming co-tenancy was upheld.

3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute relates to Khata No.202, situated in Village Vaidaha, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil and District Sultanpur, which stood recorded in the name of Ram Naresh, the original petitioner in the base year khatauni. Upon the commencement of consolidation operations in the village in question, the objections under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 were filed by the private-respondents claiming co-tenancy rights in respect of the property in question which was claimed by them to be ancestral property.

4. This was disputed by the petitioner, who set up a case that the said property was exclusively settled with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Ram Charan prior to abolition of Zamindari by the then Zamindar and as such the same could not be treated as ancestral property as alleged by the private-respondents. The aforesaid claim as raised by the petitioner was upheld by the Consolidation Officer in its order dated 04.04.1986. However, the lower appellate Court in an appeal filed by the private-respondents allowed the appeal and granted co-tenancy rights in Khata No.202. This order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 02.01.1988 was challenged in revision which was also dismissed.

5. It is further urged that the name of Ram Charan was recorded since the time of third settlement and the name of Ram Naresh was reflected in the khatauni of the year 1356 and 1362 fasli year. Accordingly, these documents were misconstrued and inappropriately considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

6. Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the private-respondents submitted that the property including the Khata No.202 was the ancestral property coming from the common ancestor Binda.

7. It is urged that upon the death of Binda, he was survived by his two sons namely Ram Charan and Shiv Charan. The petitioners are claiming exclusive rights in Khata No.202 on the ground that it belonged to Ram Naresh exclusively whereas the case of the private-respondents is that Ram Charan was having two sons namely Putai and Bipat and the private- respondents are the successors of Bipat whereas the petitioners are the successors of Putai.

8. It is urged that two other Gatas namely Gata No.330 and 331 were recorded as ancestral and co-tenancy right was granted to the private- respondents. However, only in respect of Khata No.202, the rights of the private-respondents were refused by the Consolidation Officer and both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly assessed the evidence and recorded a finding that the petitioners could not establish their exclusive rights of their predecessor Ram Char