RAM CHARITTAR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging orders passed by consolidation authorities rejecting the claim of Petitioner in respect of plot Nos. 386 and 523.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (here-in-after referred to as the Act), were filed by Ram Charittar Singh Petitioner and Ramdin Das claiming title and possession over the aforesaid plots. Petitioner for claiming his title over the plot in dispute, has relied on a decree dated 8th January, 1969 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class/Sub Divisional Officer, Phulpur, in Suit No. 1340 under Section 229-B in which he was declared bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Before Consolidation Officer Charittar Singh and Ramdjn Das filed a compromise to the effect that both may be recorded as co-tenure holders and the land in dispute is not Bhita. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 28th February, 1971, however, directed that the plots in dispute shall continue to be recorded as Bhita under Class 6. The ownership of trees however shall be of Petitioner and Ramdin Das. Aggrieved by order of the consolidation officer two appeals were filed, one appeal was filed by Ramdin Das and another appeal was filed by Ram Charittar Singh, Petitioner. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 28th August, 1972 by Additional Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Azamgarh. The order of the consolidation officer accepting the ownership of the Petitioner over the trees was set aside and it was directed that the plots in dispute shall continue to be the property of the Gaon Sabha and, shall be recorded as Bhita. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by order dated 5th February, 1976 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders.

(3.) I have heard Sri Murli Dhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.B. Garg learned Counsel for the Respondent Gaon Sabha. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the revision of Petitioner, has declined to accept the decree dated 8th January, 1969 passed in favour of Petitioner under Section 229-B of the Act declaring him bhumidhar, on the ground that on record Khewat of 1348-F, Khasra of 1378-F and Khatauni of 1376--F and a copy of the resolution of Gaon Sabha dated October, 1967 are available. From Khewat it is not clear that the Petitioner was recorded as grove holder. In Khasra of 1374-F. the land in dispute is recorded as Bhita and there are trees on it. There is no other document in support of the title of the Petitioner except the judgment in a suit under Section 229-of the Act. It has been further said that for the resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 3rd October, 1967 admitting the claim of Petitioner in suit under Section 229-B, no prior approval of Collector or Tahsildar was obtained and in absence of which there was no authority with Gaon Sabha to enter into the compromise. As the order under Section 229-B is based on the aforesaid resolution it is illegal and Petitioner does not get any title on the basis of the same. He has confirmed the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation on these findings. Sri Murli Dhar has placed reliance on, 1986 (2) RD 205 and, 1985 ALJ 1244 for submission that the decree passed in a suit under Section 229-B shall be res-judicata and could not be questioned in consolidation proceedings. Sri Murlidhar has further submitted that the resolution of the Gaon Sabha was passed on 3rd October, 1967 while the suit under Section 229-B was filed by Petitioner on 27th March, 1968 Hence provisions of Rule 110-A(2) UP ZA & LR Rules (here-in-after referred to as Rules), were not applicable. The decree passed in favour of Petitioner was not based solely on the resolution of Gaon Sabha but there was other evidence which was relied on by the revenue court for decreeing that suit of the Petitioner the decree dated 8th January, 1969 passed against Petitioner became final as no appeal was filed within limitation. Village was notified for consolidation operation on 30th August, 1969. Sri Murlidhar has produced before me a photostat copy of the Gazette Notification dated 30th August, 1969 published in U.P. Gazette of 1970 which shows that the village Chaurakhar where the plots in dispute are situated, was notified under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for consolidation operation on 30th August, 1969.