PALAKDHARI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that the order dated 9 -7 -74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the order dated 12 -10 -73 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 18 -4 -73 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9 -A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short the Act), may be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari.

(2.) THE Petitioner is a member of the Gaon Sabha of village Panchauha, district Gorakhpur. He filed objection in proceedings under Section 9 -A(2) of the Act in respect of plot No. 274 and other plots. These plots along with other plots were recorded as Khalihan, abadi, banjar and pokhari etc. as stated in the second paragraph of the order of the Consolidation Officer (Annexure -1 to the petition), that the land in dispute has vested in the Goan Sabha and Respondent No. 2 was incorrectly asserting his rights claiming sirdari and bhumidhari rights and that he was not in possession, even though incorrectly, the proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has been decided in his favour and that the order in proceedings under Rule 115 -D of the UP ZA & LR Rules were illegal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the consolidation authorities have committed error in holding that the Petitioner as a member of the Gaon Sabha shall have no right to file objection or contest the case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and that the compromise in the earlier suit filed by Shyam Narain, Respondent No. 4 under Section 229 -B of the UP ZA and LR Act against the Gaon Sabha was not accepted by the Assistant Collector, Ist Class while dismissing the suit, but Deputy Director of Consolidation incorrectly held that the said compromise was accepted. Hence incorrect observation has been made in the judgment, that the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not based on any evidence led by the parties, including oral evidence and that Respondent No. 4 cannot get any right on the basis of adverse possession. Apart from that even assuming that the right could be conferred on Respondent No. 4 by adverse possession, the starting point of limitation must have been stated and what was the period of limitation must have also been stated in the judgments of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. Thus Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 committed error on the face of record.