RAMA Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the judgments and orders dated 21.07.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer, 21.08.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Haridwar at Roorkee as well as judgment and order dated 02.05.2003 passed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Haridwar, Annexure Nos. 11, 12 and 13 respectively to the writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that Harpal, Rama, Rampal, Naresh, Rajesh, Suresh, Malkhan, Chotey Lal, Chaman Singh, Shalaikh Chand, petitioners, herein, as well as the predecessors of few of the petitioners preferred objections under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Roorkee pertaining to Gata No. 582/1, 582/3, 583/1, 336/1 and 628/5 claiming bhumidhari rights on the basis of their long standing possession as well as on the basis of adverse possession. Vide order dated 15.07.1992, learned Consolidation Officer, Roorkee was pleased to declare the petitioners and their predecessors as bhumidhar in possession of the property in question; Order dated 15.07.1992, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee was never challenged before the Appellate Authority and was allowed to attain finality. Thereafter, a compromise was placed before the Consolidation Officer on 21.02.1995, allegedly entered into between Genda and Ram Das, both sons of Bhikhhan, Chetram S/o Pantu on one side and Inder and Raja Ram, both sons of Buddhan, on the other side pertaining to Khasra No. 628/5 measuring 3 bigha and 6 biswa stating therein that name and possession of Inder and Raja Ram, S/o Buddhan, be recorded as bhumidhar of the land of Khasra No. 628/5; On the basis of compromise dated 21.02.1995, entire case was reopened and, vide judgment dated 21.07.1995 respondents were declared bhumidhar in possession of the property in question and their names and possession were directed to be entered in the revenue record; Meaning thereby, order dated 15.07.1992 was totally reversed; Feeling aggrieved, appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment/order dated 21.08.2001 and, thereafter, statutory revision also came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2003; Hence, present petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the respondents is that against the order dated 15.07.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer declaring the petitioners and their forefathers bhumidhar in possession, Appeal No. 698/1992 was preferred before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation); appeal was allowed, vide judgment dated 06.08.1993, setting aside the judgment dated 15.07.1992 and remanding the matter for the decision afresh to the Consolidation Officer; therefore, after hearing both the parties, order dated 21.07.1995 was passed.