JAMUNA PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition arises out of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) and is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra, dated 19th July, 1978, allowing the revision filed by Respondent No. 2 Shree Chand and others.

(2.) In the basic year plot No. 602/2 was recorded in the name of Respondent No. 2 Shree Chand and others. Hence, the Petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A of the Act claiming that he had been in continuous possession over the land in dispute for more than 20 years and as such he had perfected his sirdari rights under Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The Respondent contested the objection on the ground that the land in dispute had never been in possession of the Petitioner and the entries of his possession were incorrect. It was alleged that since the Petitioner had never been in possession of the said land the question of his acquiring rights as sirdar under Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act did not arise. The Consolidation Officer accepted the Petitioner's objection. The Respondent preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. Consequently, the aforesaid Respondent preferred a revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whose order has been impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) The sole question which arose for decision in the case was as to whether the Respondents had succeeded in proving their possession for the requisite period in order to perfect sirdari rights and whether their possession had been "otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law." The parties adduced oral evidence. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner were disbelieved and the Dy. Director of Consolidation observed that the most material piece of evidence had not been brought on record by the Petitioner to prove his possession. I am inclined to endorse the reasoning of the revisional authority. It is significant that although the Petitioner claimed to have been in possession of the disputed land for nearly 20 years and yet he was unable to file a single irrigation slip which would have been of great probative value in demonstrating his possession. It is remarkable that the Petitioner had admitted in his evidence that the disputed land was irrigated land as evidenced by the entries in the Khasra of the year 1366 Fasli and yet he was not able to adduce an iota of evidence to show that he had ever irrigated this land. Thus on an evaluation of oral and other material documentary evidence the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a categorical finding that the Petitioner was unable to prove his possession.