BECHAN PAL Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the order passed by the Allahabad High Court upholding the Judgement and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been impugned.

(2.) The case of the appellants is that their father Dallu had taken the land in dispute from the zamindars in the year 1950 which is equivalent to 1357 F. An application was moved on 13.03.1950 by Dallu for the purposes of proper entries in the revenue records, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who allowed the application and made entries in his favour. The village was notified for consolidation operations u/s. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act sometime in 1968. The basic year entry was in favour of the father of the appellants.

(3.) An objection was filed by Bansh Narain, the respondent, claiming occupancy right. It may also be pertinent to mention here that according to the respondent he had filed a suit under Ss. 159/180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, on 19.08.1950, within five months of the entry made in favour of Dallu by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said suit remained pending and ultimately abated in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. By order dated 16.07.1974 the Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of the respondent Bansh Narain and maintained the entry in favour of Dallu in column 20 of the khasra. The order of the Consolidation Officer was, however, set aside in appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The revision preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation upholding the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by which the objections of the respondent Bansh Narain were allowed and expunction of the entries in favour of Dallu was ordered. The High Court also maintained the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation. The objection which was raised by the appellants, doubting the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent under Ss. 159/180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, was repelled.