LAW FOR ALL

Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and Section 331 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, - when sonship was challenged , a civil suit for declaration of his status and cancellation of Revenue records from the date of Knowledge is maintainable and is not barred by limitation - Apex court held that The appellant has contended that he had no idea about the Consolidation order and was made aware of it only when he asked for his half share of crop which the defendants refused to him, and that he was made to sign an agreement in which he signed over his rights to the property and that he has been taken advantage off due to his illiteracy. We find all this extremely murky and it was incumbent upon the Consolidation Officer to properly enquire into the ownership of the land before recording the defendant’s name in the revenue records. We further hold that the appellant - Amar Nath is entitled to be recorded in the revenue records by the competent authorities as half share owner of the land in dispute, as he has a right to half the share in the property and crops, as it being the ancestral property of his father – Vaij Nath. It has been proved by examining the evidence on record, such as the election identity card, that Amar Nath is indeed the s/o Vaij Nath thereby it has demolished the contention of the defendants that the appellant is not the s/o Vaij Nath.= AMAR NATH ……… APPELLANT Vs. KEWLA DEVI & ANR. ………RESPONDENTS = 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41447