It was, inter alia, the case made out by Daya Ram and others in the aforesaid writ application that the Deputy Director of Consolidation acting as revisional authority had erred in number holding the appellants who ought to have been held as companytenure holders of the said land along with respondent Nos.
2736/1976 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench whereby the Writ Petition filed by Chhitan, Chandrika and Karia, a minor son of Jai Ram, represented by his mother and guardian Smt.
Binda and Sanehi on the death of Salatanati separated from their joint family and Adhin separated with his nephews Bhulai and Dukhi.
The land in Khata No.111 was resettled by then landlord giving certain parts to Adhin and certain other plots to others.
While disposing of the writ petitions, the High Court held in substance as under The land in dispute did number devolve upon Adhin from Saltanati.
1 to 3 filed an appeal whereas Daya Ram and others preferred an appeal also.
1 to 3 in this appeal were allowed and decision of the companysolidation authorities were set aside.
1 to 3 in respect of Khata No.111 were justified or number as granted by the High Court.
On the other hand, the respondent Nos.
152, 154, 161, 425, 435, 442, 475, 481, 465 and 511 also the names of the respondent Nos.
2736/76 filed by Chitan and others is hereby allowed and the order dated 13.8.1976 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation in so far as it relates to ten plots of Khata No.111 mentioned in the said order by which Daya Ram and others have been given company tenancy rights is hereby quashed and the petitioners Chitan, Chandrika and Karia under guardianship of Smt.
Thereby the minor Karia represented by his mother Smt.
Sonara agreed to have company tenancy rights in respect of Khata No.111, with Chittan and Chandrika.
However, the appeals filed by the parties before the appellate authority i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer were dismissed.
Revisions were filed by the parties before the Deputy Director, Consolidation which were disposed of by allowing the same partly and the following order was passed It is ordered that over the basic year in Khata No.
According to the appellants, the family remained joint till some time when the land was recorded in the name of Adhin.
At this stage, let us take up the question of accepting the Pedigree chart set up by the companytesting parties.
152, 154, 161, 425, 435, 442, 475, 481, 465 and 511 the names of Chittan, Jai Ram and Chandrika be entered and over the remaining plots of Khata No.111 the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer were accepted by him.
13 and 14 in the appeal, the writ petitions heard and disposed of in their absence companyld number be said to be maintainable in law.
2736/1976 against the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in revision cases challenging the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation on the ground that in the admitted facts of the present case respondent Nos.
On a finding of fact arrived by the companysolidation authorities particularly the revisional authorities, it is number in dispute number that Bekaru was the son of Jokhan and therefore the Pedigree set up by the appellants must be accepted.
It is this order of the High Court, which is under challenge before us in respect of which leave was granted.
On the death of Adhin the said land was recorded in the name of Jabbar and then subsequently in the name of Jai Ram.
1 to 3 over the land of Khata No.111 in Village Balrampur, Pargana and Tehsil Tanda, District Faizabad hereinafter referred to as the said land .
Accepting the findings arrived at by the companysolidation authorities or on the admitted facts, the High Court held that the disputed holding did number companye in tact in the identical form and only some of the plots of the holdings belonging to companymon ancestral were found included in the disputed holding and therefore that would number make an ancestral holding so as to give a share in it to the appellants on that ground number it would be permissible to pick up those plots from the holding and declare them to be the ancestral property and give a share in those plots to the appellants.
1 to 3.
However, the said lands companytinued to be recorded in the name of Adhin.
Subsequently, in the year 1338 F this land was recorded in the name of Adhin by way of settlement.
No order as to companyts.
We restrict ourselves only on the question whether the claims of respondent Nos.
On the other hand, the appellants representing Daya Ram and others jointly claimed company tenancy rights in respect of the said land on the ground that the said lands were acquired by their ancestor Saltanati and thereafter Jokhan son of Adhin was recorded in the representative capacity.
13 of village Balrampur, Tehsil and Pargana Tanda, District Faizabad.
1 to 3 ought to have been held to be sole tenure holders in respect of the said lands.
1 to 3 shall only be entered.
226 of the Constitution.
The Pedigree chart which was set up by the appellants is given below The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 6th June 1972 declared the appellants or their predecessor in interest as companytenure holders in respect of the said land along with Jai Ram and determined the share on the basis of the Pedigree, as numbered above.
1 to 3 was that Bekaru was the son of Saltanati.
That is to say in respect of the remaining plots in Khata No.111, the respondent shall be entered as companytenure holders in respect of the remaining plots of Khata No.111.
The entire lands of Khata No.111 companytinued to remain recorded in the name of Adhin, even though Dukhi, Bhulai, Binda and Sanehi cultivated their lands separately.
13 the names of Chhitan respondent No.1 , Jai Ram Respondent No.2 and Chandrika Respondent No.3 alone shall be entered.
It must be brought on record that before us, numbersubmission has been made in respect of the appeal filed by Daya Ram and others challenging the portion of the order which had gone against them.
1 to 3 and also remaining plots of Khata No.111.
At this stage, to understand the Pedigree of the parties, it would be appropriate to give a Pedigree chart herein number which is number number in dispute as was given by the appellants.
It is this order of the revisional authority passed in the aforesaid revision cases Daya Ram and others filed a writ application in the High Court of Allahabad, which came to be registerd as W.P. No.2838/1976.
After the death of Adhin, the said lands came to be recorded in the name of his son Jabbar and thereafter on the death of Jabbar the same was recorded in the name of his son Jai Ram.
Over the remaining plots of Khata No.111 in accordance with the orders of Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the names of both the parties shall be entered as companytenants.
After some time, Bhulai and Dukhi, who were joint with Adhin also separated from him and by partition the lands were divided.
1 to 3 had failed to prove that Bekaru was the son of Saltanati.
Sonara his wife and minor son Karia had represented the estate as the legal heirs and representatives of Jai Ram.
Since Jai Ram was number traceable in his place Smt.
Dr. Padia thus companytended that the High Court erred in setting aside the finding of fact of the companysolidation authorities by substituting its own views on the question of fact under Art.
It was the case of Daya Ram and others appellants herein that Bekaru was the son of Jokhan whereas the case of respondent Nos.
Sonara entered into a settlement with Chittan son of Dubri, Chandrika son of Sripat.
In this manner, the said land of Jokhan and Salatanati were distributed in the joint family and the shares were divided equally.
We have heard the learned companynsel on either side and examined carefully all the orders of the Consolidation authorities and finally the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Secondly, it was companytended by Dr. Padia that since two of the companytenure holders were number made parties in the writ application who are appellant Nos.
In the same manner, Binda and Sanehi lived jointly for some time and thereafter separated by partition.
It was, however, number the submission of Dr. Padia that it was number open to the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction when the companysolidation authorities had erred in deciding a question of law on the facts admitted or proved by the parties before them.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court after hearing the parties disposed of the aforesaid two writ petitions by passing the following order In the result, the writ petition No.2838/76 filed by Daya Ram and others is dismissed being devoid of merits and writ petition No.
By allowing the said Writ petition, the appellants were deprived of their alleged shares in ancestral tenancy and giving sole tenancy rights to respondent Nos.
However, the respondent Nos.
As quoted herein above, the Deputy Director, Consolidation held that in Khata No.111 plot Nos.
Aggrieved by the order dated 6th June 1972 of the Consolidation Officer respondent Nos.
In Khata No.111 over plot Nos.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th March 1987 passed in W.P. No.
1 to 3 also filed a writ application being W.P. No.
Sonara being respondent Nos.
The aforesaid two fold submissions of Dr. Padia were, however, companytested by Mr. O.P. Sharma, the learned senior companynsel who appeared for the respondent Nos.
Somura are directed to be recorded as sole tenure holders to entire land of Khata No.111 and also Khata No.
