Kalloo vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 445 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. 5
 

 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6675 of 2011
 
Kalloo Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahoba & Ors.
 

 
*****
 

 

 
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the supplementary affidavit filed today.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were ex-parte and therefore the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have erred in not allowing the restoration application of the petitioner and have proceeded on merits.

Learned counsel with the aid of the supplementary affidavit submits that there was a document available on record which indicates that it was Parsadwa who was entered as a hereditary tenant in Ziman - 8 and therefore it cannot be presumed that the property had been acquired by the ancestors. Learned counsel therefore submits that the Consolidation Officer committed a manifest error by recording the names of the respondents 4 and 5.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the admitted pedigree is as follows:

 

 

 
Balla
 

 

 

 

 
Kharga (Faut)					        Murtia
 

 

 

 
Parsadwa (Faut)				Churaman		      Lachchu
 

 

 
 
 
  Kalloo
 

 

 

It is therefore clear that Parsadwa was the grandson of Balla. The property has been entered in Ziman - 8 which is obviously of hereditary tenancy. In such a situation the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that it was not an ancestral acquisition cannot be accepted. Even otherwise the Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence contrary to the revenue records that were available to establish his exclusive possession after the death of Parsadwa. Even before this Court the document which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, and which was not there before the authorities below, supports the cause of the respondents and the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer on merits could not have been upturned.

In the opinion of the Court the petitioner has failed to adduce any material that may warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take a view adverse to that which has been taken by the authorities below.

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt. 23.3.2011

Sahu