AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Sahai, J.—Facts are not in dispute in this petition. Consolidation Officer found that although Petitioner had claimed to be sole tenant he was co-tenant of 1/5th only along with opposite party (described as opposite party second set in the petition). In appeal also the same finding was affirmed. The Deputy Director did not find any illegality in it. But he set aside both the orders and dismissed the objection of Petitioner as claim of co-tenancy could not be involved in sole tenancy. Reliance was placed by him on Ram Jiwan Koere v. Board of Revenue 1965 AWR 775. It is the correctness of this view that has been challenged by way of this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
In Bechu v. Board of Revenue 1966 AWR 489, a Division Bench of this Court did not approve of the decision in Rani Jiwan''s case (supra). It cannot be disputed that larger relief includes smaller. If only part is found established then the claim cannot be rejected because whole was claimed and not part. Further it has been repeatedly held by this Court that pleadings in consolidation proceeding should not be construed strictly.
In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs.