MUSTAFA Vs. GULABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE litigation in respect of plot No. 1001 measuring 2 biswas. 7 biswansis of village Deola, police Station Kotwali Dehat, district Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the disputed land), both, in revenue and criminal Courts between Mustafa, the applicant (Revisionist) and Gulaba and Chaman Lal, opposite parties No. 1 and 2, the former claiming it on the basis of a sale-deed executed by the latter in 1967 A. D. has had a chequered history, covering over 11 years and it is almost certain that even this order will not bring a final curtain upon it. As is usual with this type of litigation where the alleged vendees (opposite parties No. 1 and 2) deny the execution of sale-deed, it is being fought to a bitter end. For a proper appreciation of the points involved for determination, it is necessary to detail such facts in a chronological order, which emerge from record and admit of no controversy.

(2.) VILLAGE Deola of District Saharanpur came under consolidation scheme before July 1979. In village records, name of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 was recorded over the disputed land. An objection was filed by Mustafa, revisionist, before the consolidation authorities, asserting bhumidhari rights in the disputed land on the basis of a sale-deed executed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in April 1967. It was prayed that his name be mutated in village papers after expunction of the name of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Indisputably, there are two pucca rooms and a Hall on this land and a flour mill is installed in the Hall. Mustafa claimed to gave raised these constructions after purchasing the disputed land and asserted that he was in possession thereof. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 denied to have transferred their bhumidhari rights in the disputed land to Mustafa and asserted that the said constructions belonged to them and they were in possession thereof. The then, Assistant Consolidation Officer visited the spot and submitted report on the 24th July 1979 to the effect that Mustafa was in possession of the disputed land and constructions thereon. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated the 1st of July, 1980, accepted the claim of Mustafa and directed for mutation of his name, on the basis of the sale- deed, over the disputed land, observing that he was in possession thereof. The order was assailed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 by means of an appeal, but they were unsuccessful, The Settlement Officer Consolidation, by his order dated the 22nd of August, 1980, upheld the findings of the Consolidation Officer. The unsuccessful party, namely, opposite parties No. 1 and 2, then filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who also, by his order dated the 15th of October, 1980, affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the final order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and in this writ petition numbered as 822 of 1981 (Annexure CA III filed with the objection by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in this proceedings), an interim order was passed on 26. 3. 1982 suspending the operation of the order dated 1. 7. 1980 passed by the consolidation officer, provided it had not been given effect to in village records.

(3.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Mustafa challenging the order dated 11. 5. 88 passed by the learned VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur.