Court No. 52

WRIT – B No. - 5418 of 1980

Petitioner :-

Pattu

Respondent :-

Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad

and Others

Counsel for Petitioner:-

R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate, N.D.

Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Shashi Prakash Mishra

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1.

Heard Sri R.C. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Sri N.D. Shukla, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Shashi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for

respondent no.2.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit under

Section 229-B/209 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act with the

allegations that he was co-tenant along with the defendants of

the plot in dispute, situated in village Thanwa Mundiari and in

village Deorar. Petitioner’s father Ramdin died just before the

consolidation operation, leaving behind the plaintiff-petitioner as

his heir and legal representative. During consolidation

operation, dispute arose in respect of the plots in dispute,

situated in village Deorar and the Deputy Director of

Consolidation has finally held that plaintiff-petitioner is son of

Ramdin, the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation,

holding the petitioner as son of Ramdin in respect of the

property situated in village Deorar has attained finality. In case

of the plots in dispute situated in villate Thanwa Mundiari, the

contesting respondents got their name recorded, without any

basis as petitioner was minor at that time and petitioner’s

mother did not watch her interest under the impression that like

the village Deorar, petitioner will also be recorded over the plots

of village Thanwa Mundiari. When the plaintiff-petitioner came

to know that his name is not recorded in the revenue records in

respect of the plots situated in village Thanwa Mundiari, he filed

a suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for

recording his name over the plots in dispute. The suit was

contested by defendant-respondents who claimed sole sirdari

right over the disputed land, they further alleged that petitioner

is not son of Ramdin and the suit is bared under Section 49 of

the U.P. C.H. Act as well as Section 34(5) of the U.P. Land

Revenue Act, the point of limitation as well as jurisdiction was

also raised by the defendant-respondents. On behalf of the

plaintiff-petitioner, oral evidence was adduced before the trial

court, plaintiff-petitioner’s mother Smt. Jasso was examined as

P.W.-2 along with witness Lal Sahai who stated that petitioner is

son of Ramdin, certified copies of the order dated

28.3.1962/14.11.1962, passed by the Deputy Director of

Consolidation were filed before the trial court which

demonstrates that plaintiff-petitioner was held to be son of

Ramdin in respect of the plots situated in village Deorar. The

trial court vide his judgment dated 11.1.1968 decreed the

plaintiff’s suit, recording finding of fact that plaintiff-petitioner is

the son of Ramdin, as such, he is declared to be co-sirdar in

possession in respect to the land in dispute along with

defendant-respondents, finding was also recorded that suit is

not barred under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act, finding was

also recorded to the effect that judgment of consolidation court

dated 28.3.1962 and 14.11.1962 would operate as estoppel

against the defendant-respondents as that judgment, although,

2

in respect of different village have attained finality and would

operate as res judicata between the parties. Against the

judgment of the trial court dated 11.1.1968, defendant-

respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner and the

Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.11.1963

dismissed the appeal filed by defendant-respondents and the

finding has been recorded by the appellate court also that suit

is not barred under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act and Section

34(5) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the