ROOP LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that in the absence of any proof of the orders passed by the Judicial Officer dated 8.6.1961 or the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in relation to the alleged partition dated 24.1.1961, the findings arrived at in relation to the partition of the holdings between the predecessors in interest of the petitioner and the contesting respondents is erroneous.

(3.) THE aforesaid finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer has been reversed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation holding that if the file has been weeded out the same cannot be a basis to create a presumption of doubt in respect of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer or the order of the Judicial Officer. THE Settlement Officer Consolidation has concluded that the order dated 24th January, 1961 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer does not appear to have been challenged before any authority and the entries in favour of the respondents have continued for the past more than three decades. No evidence appears to have been led to establish the entries of the orders of the Judicial Officer or the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 24.1.1961 is on the basis of non-existent proceedings. THE petitioner could have obtained extracts of the registers from the record room to establish that no such proceedings were entered into the "Goswara" or register maintained for the said purpose. Where records are weeded out, the entries are maintained in separate registers. THE petitioner failed to make any such attempt and therefore the presumption in favour of the entries, that are long standing, could not be dislodged on a mere doubt or suspicion as neither doubt nor suspicion can take the place of proof. THE Consolidation Officer therefore fell into an error on that score as such the orders impugned cannot be faulted with.