TAHAL SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 30.7.1994 passed by Consolidation Officer, order dated 18.5.1995 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as order dated 23.2.2000 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition according to the petitioners are, that plot nos.11/1 and 11/2 area 44 bigha 16 biswa, khata no.35 village Phulsunga, Tehsil Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar was purchased by the petitioners from Sri Parshadi and Mohan vide sale deed dated 19.4.1972. It was alleged that earlier tenure holder Parshadi and Mohan were originally sirdars and, they after depositing twenty times of the land revenue, obtained bhumidhari sanad on 19.4.1972. It was also alleged that father of respondent no.4, namely, Sri Rama Shanker Singh applied for cancellation of bhumidhari sanad u/s 137 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The petitioners after purchasing the land through registered sale deed dated 19.4.1972 applied for mutation of their names. The case of the father of the respondent no.4 was that the earlier bhumidhars Parshadi and Mohan executed an agreement dated 10.5.1968 in his favour and in pursuance thereof also gave possession of the land in question to him. On the basis of agreement, the respondent no.4 claimed that sale of the property in favour of the petitioners was against the terms of the agreements as he was entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour. The father of respondent no.4 stated that his permissive possession started from 1375 - 76 Fasli and he was also recorded as Sikmi. Vide order dated 17.5.1974, Assistant Collector, Ist Class, rejected the application for cancellation of Sanad, granting bhumidhari rights to Mohan and Parshadi, and further directed names of the petitioners to be mutated in place of Mohan and Parshadi as bhumidhars. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.1974, father of respondent no.4 filed an appeal u/s 137 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division. He also filed revision against the common order dated 17.5.1974. Learned Commissioner, vide order dated 13.5.1977, dismissed the appeal as well as the revision filed by the father of the respondent no.4. The petitioner's case was that there was no entry of the name of the father of respondent no.4 upto 1374 Fasli and his name was recorded for the first time in 1375 Fasli as Sikmi. The case of the father of the respondent no.4 was that he was given permissive possession under the agreement dated 10.5.1968. The Consolidation Officer has illegally held that limitation started running from the time of application of U.P. Tenancy Act i.e. before the date of vesting i.e. 01.07.1969.

(3.) APART from this, a suit under Section 229 -B read with section 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was also filed by the petitioners prior to initiation of consolidation proceedings.