SHEO PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are Involved, they were, as desired by the learned counsel for the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 27585 of 1992 shall be the leading case.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.6.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, allowing the revision filed by the contesting respondents under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short, 'the Act'.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the land comprised in Khata No. 150 of village Pagar Tappa Naval. Pargana Nagar Pashchim, Tehsil Harraiya, district Basti, (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute') was recorded in the basic year in the name of Lautoo son of Ramai. At the time of partal, the petitioners were stated to be in possession. Lautoo filed an objection claiming that he was as sirdar in possession of the land in dispute. He did not deposit ten times land revenue to acquire Bhumi Dhari rights nor executed any sale deed with respect to the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners and that as he came to know about the said sale-deed and order of mutation passed on the basis of the same in favour of the petitioners, he filed an objection before the revenue court. A suit for declaration under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is also alleged to be filed. In the meanwhile, the village where the land in dispute was situated came under the operation of the Act, therefore, the cases which were pending before the revenue courts stood abated. Before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, an objection was filed, It was prayed that the names of the petitioners be expunged from the revenue papers and the name of Lautoo should be recorded over the land in dispute. On the other hand, objection/written statement was filed by the petitioners claiming that Lautoo has executed a registered sale-deed in their favour on 26.6.1971 after receiving valuable consideration for the same in accordance with law on the basis of which they were owners in possession of the land in dispute and their names were liable to be mutated in the revenue papers. As there was dispute between the parties with respect to the land in dispute which could not be resolved before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the case was, therefore, referred to the Consolidation Officer for decision by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed re levant/necessary Issues. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary and also filed the reports of the hand-writing and fingerprint experts in their favour. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record, recorded findings on all relevant issues in favour of the petitioners. In brief, it was held that Lautoo, after receiving valuable consideration firstly obtained bhumidhari sanad and thereafter willingly executed the registered sale deed in respect of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners and also delivered possession over the same to them, they were as such owners in possession of the land in dispute. Having recorded the said findings, the Consolidation Officer decided the case in favour of the petitioners by his judgment and order dated 27.4.1981. From the material on record, it appears that during pendency of the case Lautoo has died leaving behind the contesting respondents, Vanshraj and others (brother's sons). The contesting respondents, therefore, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Even before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, it was asserted by the contesting respondents that no sale deed was executed by Lautoo in favour of the petitioners and the sale-deed in question was a fraudulent and forged document. The findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the order passed by him to the contrary were, therefore, liable to be set aside. On the other hand, petitioners had supported the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, after hearing the parties, affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer on all relevant issues and dismissed the appeal filed by VanshraJ and others by his judgment and order dated 21.12.1989. The contesting respondents thereafter preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision by judgment and order dated 22.6.1992, hence the present petition by the petitioners.