SUKKHU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Despite the fact that the case has been taken up in the revised call. No one has appeared for the Respondents.

(2.) In the basic year records, Basantu, Ganga son of Antu, Vishwanath and Shiv Nath were recorded as sirdar over the land in dispute. The Petitioner Sukkhu son of Rameshwar filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming rights on the basis of adverse possession. Before the Consolidation Officer the recorded tenure holders filed objection denying the claim of Sukkhoo. Both the parties lead evidence. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of Sukkhu with regard to plot in dispute. The appeal filed by the Respondents was dis-missed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the Respondents and restored the basic year entries, after setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation.

(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded the following findings: