BABU ALI Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Shri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the legal heirs of opposite party no.3 i.e. opposite parties no.3/1/1 to 3/4/7. Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel.

(2.) This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 05.11.1981 and 22.05.1984 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and order dated 28.11.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur.

(3.) The dispute in the instant writ petition relates to Khata No.123, consisting of Plot Nos. 2100/2, 2101/1 measuring 0.70, 2113 measuring 0.5 and 244 measuring 0.46, which was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Kallu, the father of the petitioner Mohd. Hussain @ Ghamar, who has now been substituted by his legal heir after his death. Mohd. Hussain @ Ghamar had filed an objection during consolidation that he was the son of Kallu, therefore his name be recorded on the plots in dispute. One Sukai filed an objection claiming rights on the basis of adverse possession but later on he gave a statement and his objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. No appeal or revision was filed by him. The opposite party no.3 Rasool now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs in the present writ petition had filed an objection claiming the plots in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the objections of the opposite party no.3 holding that he has failed to prove his continuous adverse possession on the plots in dispute and directed to record the name of the petitioner being the son and legal heir of the deceased Kallu. The opposite party no.3 filed an appeal which was allowed ex-parte by means of the order dated 05.11.1981 and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was set-aside. It was recorded in the order that the notice of appeal has been returned with the refusal of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application for recall of the order. The said application was rejected in absence of the petitioner on 19.03.1984. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application for restoration on 20.03.1984 on the ground that the train of the petitioner was delayed therefore he reached the court at about 05:00 P.M., when he came to know that his application has been rejected and his counsel had not come to court. The opposite party no.2 rejected the application for restoration filed by the petitioner by means of the order dated 22.05.1984. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. opposite party no.1 challenging the order of rejection of the restoration application. Another revision was filed by the petitioner challenging the original order dated 05.11.1981 passed by the opposite party no.2 in appeal alongwith an application under Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revisions by means of the order dated 28.11.1985. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.