HARI NAM SINGH Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and opposite parties no.5 to 8 in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 (here-in-after referred as the petitioners), Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 (here-in-after referred as the opposite party no.2) and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha in both the writ petitions. The office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice for opposite party no.1 in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and for opposite parties no.1 to 3 in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006.

(2.) The Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 20.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Writ Petition No. 862 (Cons) of 2006 challenging the same judgment and order dated 20.05.2006 to the extent of rejecting the title of the petitioners on trees and boring well as well as directing the Plot No.798 to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The dispute in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 relates to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 whereas the dispute in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of 2006 relates only to the extent of half share in Plot No.798.

(3.) On publication of records the father of the petitioners late Mahipal Singh had filed objection claiming the land of the Plot Nos.642, 798, 853/1, 853/2, 540 and 509 as his grove land and under his occupation and possession since the time prior to Zamidari Abolition. The Assistant Consolidation Officer transmitted it to the Consolidation Officer on an application moved by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer after considering the objection and the evidence adduced before it rejected the claim of the petitioners in regard to Plot Nos.853 and 540 and allowed in regard to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 and declared him as grove holder Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 205 of U.P. Tenancy Act read with Section 18 (1) (e) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as Act of 1953) since 1362 Fasli and directed to remove the entry of Usar/Banzar and record the name of the petitioners in the revenue records by means of the order dated 07.02.1996. On an application moved by the petitioners, under Rule 109-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (here-in-after referred as Rules of 1954), the Consolidation Officer directed to make entry in the revenue records by means of the order dated 13.02.1998.