NEUR Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.2.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 48/76 (Badri v. Neur and others) whereby the revision filed by the respondent Badri has been allowed and it has been ordered that the name of Badri be recorded as Sirdar over the plots in dispute. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner No. 1 Neur and petitioner No. 2 Laley died and the heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record. The respondent No. 4 Badri also died and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record.

(2.) The petitioner's claim to be Sirdars of plot Nos. 223/40, 224/40, 261/25, 267/34, 273/48, 295/63, 300/32, 301/35 situated in village Ramnagar, Tappa Katehra, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur. According to them the name of respondent No. 4 Badri was recorded in the revenue record in the basic year. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that the land in question is ancestral property of the petitioner. As such the name of Badri (respondent No. 4) was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 19.5.1975 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer had framed the issue as to whether the petitioner Neur and others have any interest over the land in question.

(3.) While considering the issue the Consolidation Officer took into account statement of Sitaram, Baran and Ram Dulare who stated that the petitioner was in possession over the plot in dispute. The Consolidation Officer considered the extract of Khatauni from 1360 Fasli to 1372 Fasli. The Consolidation Officer decided the issue against the petitioner and held that the name of Badri in the revenue record is coming from 1360 Fasli when the zamindar had settled the land in dispute. He found that under the provisions of U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 1952 (U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952) records could be corrected on the basis of cultivatory possession of the land as on 1359 Fasli and therefore the entry made in the agreement register in pursuance of an order passed under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 would be deemed to be correct unless the party challenging it proves it to be wrong. The Consolidation Officer found that Badri was in possession since long and his name was entered in the revenue record correctly but since no objection/suit had been filed for more than 12 years by the petitioner the possession of Badri cannot be held to be wrong and his name in the basic year would entitle him to Sirdari rights.