MANSA TEWARI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have come up assailing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1st February, 1974 whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that was in favour of the Petitioners declaring them to be Sirdars of the plots in question. The Petitioners claim Sirdari rights and in the alternative Bhumidhari rights over the said disputed land as against Vishwanath, Rama Shanker-Respondent No. 5, Kashinath and Paras Nath. Their claim is two fold. Firstly, that two usufructuary mortgage deeds dated 10th August, 1985 and 21st August, 1984 were executed and the Petitioners are in possession. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of Section 164 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act'), they have perfected their title as Bhumidhars. The alternative plea set up by the Petitioners is that since they are in possession, therefore, even otherwise, they are Sirdars of the said property and, therefore, the declaration given by the Consolidation Officer and affirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation did not deserve any interference. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is, therefore, being assailed on the ground that the order remanding the matter is unjustified, inasmuch as, the consolidation authorities cannot enter into the validity or otherwise of the mortgage deeds and on facts the Petitioners having been found alternatively Sirdars, the said finding being based on evidence could not have been reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 claim that they had sale-deeds in their favour to the extent of the shares purchased by them from the recorded tenure holders Vishwanath, Rama Shanker, Kashinath and Paras Nath and it is they who are the owners of the plots in question, in which the Petitioners have no right, title and interest.

(3.) On the advent of the consolidation operations objections were filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The objections were decided by the Consolidation Officer holding that the Petitioners are the Sirdars of the said plots and accordingly they were entitled to get their name recorded as such. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.