RAM KALI Vs. COMMISSIONER CHITRAKUT DHAM MANDAL BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the appellate order dated 8.12.1998 passed by respondent No. 1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased 2/3 of the area of plot No. 191, as an area 9.94 acres and of plot No. 501, area 0.35 acres through a registered sale deed executed by the original tenure holder Jalim Singh on 1.6.1988. These plot numbers were given in pursuance of consolidation proceedings and the earlier plot number was 1616/2. The dispute in the present writ petition with regard to an area of 0.84 acres of the said plots, which have been declared surplus land in proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which was initiated against Jalim Singh. It is also stated that Jalim Singh died some time in the year 1991.

(2.) Further, contention of the petitioner is that his name has been mutated in the revenue records. It is also stated that a suit No. 25 under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (Act, 1950) was filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 4, Smt. Savitri, who is the daughter of late Jalim Singh and to whom portion of the plot was stated to have been sold by late Jalim Singh. It is stated that by the order dated 31.10.95 share of the petitioner and of the respondent No. 4 was divided and plot No. 191/2 having an area of 2.081 acres was allotted to the petitioner. It is also stated that after about ten years of the sale deed, the Lekhpal without giving any notice to the petitioner made an entry in plot No. 191, having an area 1.23 acres in the name of Smt. Indrani, respondent No. 6. When this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner he filed a restoration application before the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur. His restoration application is stated to have been allowed by the order dated 13.11.1997 and the Consolidation Officer recalled his earlier order dated 10.7.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda, respondent No. 1 on the ground that he had purchased the plot in dispute from the original tenure holder Jalim Singh, which was given a new number 191 and that the land which has been declared surplus should have been carved out from the other plots of Jalim Singh and not from the plot No. 191. The respondent No. 1, has however, rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri Ram Kishor Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing appearing for the respondents.