RAMJEET UPADHYAYA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is third round of litigation in the High Court which arises out of the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act in pursuance of the objection filed by the petitioners herein in respect of the plot Nos. 737/1, 737/2, 738/1 and 738/3 situate in the village Jagdishpur Changan, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad.

(2.) IN the basic year the aforesaid plots were recorded as Banzar in the name of Gaon Sabha. An objection by Babu Lal son of Ram Pratap whose decendants are the petitioners herein was filed on the allegation that the objector (herein after to referred as the petitioners) had been in occupation and possession of the aforestated disputed plots since the time immemorial and are being cultivated by him. He has installed a tubewell and has become Sirdar by operation of law. The plots in dispute are not Banzar and it is wrongly recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. It was prayed that the objection be accepted and his name be recorded as Sirdar vide objection dated 19th of November, 1974.

(3.) THE First Appellate Court, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, examined the matter and noticed that on earlier two occasions the objections filed by the petitioners were rejected. A person cannot perfect his title by way of adverse possession on the basis of oral evidence in absence of documentary evidence in his favour. THE order of the Consolidation Officer is principally based on the oral evidence and thus, cannot be allowed to stand. THE entry in 1356 Fasli in the revenue record was found doubtful in the earlier round of litigation by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the doubt having not been cleared by the petitioners, in absence of any evidence to show that the petitioners were in occupation of the disputed plots before and after the abolition of Zamindari, they cannot acquire any right, title or interest in the Gaon Sabha property legally. THEre were two appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation one against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and another one in respect of the proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the Act. Both these appeals were heard and decided together and were allowed by a consolidated judgment dated 9.6.2005. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners carried the matter in revision No. 1749/1457 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed it by the impugned order dated 9.1.2006. Challenging these two orders one passed by the First Appellate Court and another by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the present writ petition has been filed.