GANPAT SINGH Vs. A.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) THE dispute relates to plot No. 820 area 1.37 acre situate in village Gadauna Tehsil Salempur, District Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the plot in dis­pute). In the basic year the name of Raja Awadesh Pratap Narain Mal was recorded. The said Raja is said to have executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner and respon­dent No. 9 on 20.12.1962. During the con­solidation proceedings the petitioner and respondent No. 9 got their names mutated by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27th February, 1970. Objections were filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that plot in dispute was ancestral holding. Such claim was based upon registered agreement dated 18th February, 1918 exe­cuted in their favour by the Courts of Ward. The Consolidation Officer framed five issues. The parties led their evidence. Vide order dated 15th September, 1971 the Consolidation Officer after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that respondent nos.4 and 5 were entitled to the claim made in their objections relying upon the registered agreement dated 18th February, 1918. He recorded a finding that the Raja Awadesh Pratap Narain Mai had no right over the plot in dispute and as such the sale deed executed by him in fa­vour of the petitioner and respondent No. 9 would also not confer any right on the vendees. The Consolidation Officer had also examined the other evidence on record and had accordingly allowed the objec­tions.

(3.) THREE revisions were filed, one each by the petitioner, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide or­der dated 27.1.1973 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and allowed the re­vision filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the other revision filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. He accordingly directed that the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 be jointly recorded over the land in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation upon consideration of material on record came to the conclusion that Raja Awadesh Pratap Narain Mai did not have any right taking into consideration the effect of the regis­tered agreement executed by the Court of Wards. Further finding recorded by the Consolidation Court was that the petitioner has failed to establish the sale deed in ac­cordance with law and therefore also would not be entitled to any benefit under the sale deed. Along with the petition only the judgement of the Consolidation Courts have been filed. No other evidence has been annexed. Neither the Ikrarnama (registered agreement) of 1918 is on record nor the sale deed has been filed nor any other oral or documentary evidence has been filed to show that the sale deed had been duly proved. In absence of the same the effect of the said documents or the findings recorded by the Consolidation Court with regard to the sale deed having not been proved in accordance with law, cannot be looked into by this Court in this petition.