RAM MURAT Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. The plots in question were originally recorded as Talab and Pasture Land. It was regarding these plots that the appellants had filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming sirdari rights which were allowed by the Consolidation Officer. That order obtained finality as it was not challenged either in appeal or in revision before any consolidation authority.

(2.) Subsequently, a member (Kesho Prasad Misra) of the Land Management Committee made an application that the order has been obtained from the Consolidation Officer fraudulently as the plots being "talab" and "pasture Land" belonged to the "gaon Sabha" and could not have been recorded in the name of the appellants. On this application, the Settlement Officer called for a report which was submitted by the Consolidation Officer and Asst. Consolidation Officer who reported that mutation was properly done. Thereafter, three other members of the Land Management Committee gave an application to the Collector upon which an enquiry was made and the Collector on being satisfied closed the matter. In the meantime, the matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director exercising power under Section 48 of the said Act, issued a notice to the appellants and heard them.

(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the plots in question were all along recorded as "pond" and "pasture Land" and the file of the earlier case which was decided by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the appellants and on the basis of which their names were mutated had been weeded out. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that if the case was decided in 1971 by the Consolidation Officer, the file could not have been weeded out before 1983 as the period for retaining the file was twelve years. It was also noticed that in the "goshwara" of that file which was available in the Record Room did not indicate the names of the appellants. On this basis, the Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the conclusion that order passed earlier in favour of the appellants was collusive and on that basis no sirdari rights could be conferred upon them in respect of the land which had vested in the State and consequently belonged to the Gaon Sabha. The Writ Petition filed thereafter, by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court with the finding that there was no error in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as the petitioners had failed to show or produce any document of their title in respect of the land in question.