SUKHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) At the conclusion of the arguments we indicated that, in our opinion, the matter has to go back to the High Court. Now we give the reasons therefor. In order to understand the controversy, it is necessary to state briefly the facts leading up to the filing of these two appeals, by special leave.

(3.) Ravi Dutta Singh (2nd appellant) is father of Sukhendra Singh (1st appellant). They initiated two separate proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, 1953 Act) against Gaon Sabha, Lakanpur (now Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur - 4th respondent) for declaring them as Bhumidhar and removing the name of Gaon Sabha in respect of diverse plots details of which have been set out in synopsis at pages B and C. For brevity, we shall refer to these plots as the disputed land. On January 3, 1978, by two separate orders, the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad declared Ravi Dutta Singh and Sukhendra Singh (Surendra Bahadur Singh) Bhumidhar in respect of the disputed land and ordered removal of name of Gaon Sabha from the revenue record. It appears that no follow up action was taken pursuant to the orders dated January 3, 1978 by the concerned authorities, and accordingly, the 1st appellant made an application under Section 52(2) of the 1953 Act before the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad for implementation of the aforesaid orders. On December 18, 1995 after seeking the report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad ordered that the revenue record be corrected by entering the applicants name as Bhumidhar. Yet again, nothing seems to have been done pursuant to the order dated December 18, 1995. The 1st appellant, 2nd appellant and Smt. Etrawass Kunwari (3rd appellant), who is wife of 2nd appellant, approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing few separate petitions. Strangely one writ petition in the name of Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur also seems to have been filed which was heard along with writ petition filed by the 1st appellant. By separate orders passed on March 24, 1998 in each of these petitions, the concerned authorities were directed to make necessary corrections in the revenue record pursuant to the orders dated January 3, 1978