JEET NARAIN Vs. GOVIND PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted. Heard the parties.

(2.) THE appellants claim to be the owners in possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural land (Khata 106). According to them their father Mata Jatan, son of Jarbandhan acquired the said property and in the basic year of Akar Patra 5, the said land was recorded in their names.

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellants, appellant No. 2 was born blind and appellant No. 1 is an illiterate (who can only sign). They claim that they did not enter into any settlement, nor aware of the order dated 9.7.1980. They allege that Ram Sundar, Anant Ram and Basant Lal were not members of their family and they had committed a fraud and alleging some conciliation/compromise, had got their names entered as co-tenure holders in respect of Khata No. 106, without the knowledge or consent of the appellants. It is submitted by them that the order dated 9.7.1980 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule 25A of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 ('Rules' for short) which inter alia requires: