DHANI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is directed against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 21-2-1972 as well as against order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7-9-1972 dismissing the petitioners' objection.

(2.) The land in dispute consists of plots no. 1210 of Khata no. 819 of Village Hariharpur tahsil Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur. During the consolidation operations, the name of Mohar Ali and Zahoori were recorded in the basic year over the plot in dispute. Admittedly, Zahoori died. Dhanai petitioner filed an objection under Sec. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming Sirdari rights over the plots in dispute on the basis of continued possession for a period or more than six years. Mohar Alt contested the petitioner's objection and asserted that the petitioner was his brother-in-law and that his possession over the plots in dispute was permissive in nature. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 17-11-1971 allowed the petitioner's objection and declared him to be Sirdar of the plots in dispute. On appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) set aside the Order of the Consolidation Officer on the finding that the entries relating to the petitioner's possession in the village record were not made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual as P.A. 10 Slip were not counter-signed by Mohar Ali who was recorded as tenant-in-chief, He further recorded a finding that the petitioners' possession was permissive in nature, being a near relation of Mohar Ali they had been permitted to cultivate the field on his behalf. The petitioner filed a revision application but that failed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated 7-9-1972- Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the entries in the village papers the petitioner's possession over the plot in dispute for more than six years was proved and as such the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both committed error in rejecting the petitioner's claim. Admittedly, the petitioner was recorded in possession over the plots in dispute for a period of more than six years but the question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners possession permissive or adverse in nature. Both the consolidation authorities, namely, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have recorded a finding that the petitioner's possession was permissive in nature. This finding was recorded on appreciation of the evidence on record. The finding does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction.