RAM DUTT Vs. D.D.C. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been tiled against the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision under Sec. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

(2.) The dispute was in respect of plots no. 746, 756 and 757. The petitioner claimed that he bad been recorded as subtenant in respect of all the three plots prior to abolition of zamindari till 1356 Fasli subsequently after the date of vesting the petitioner and his brothers became Bhumidhars of the plots no, 756 and 757 and Adhiwasi of plot no. 746. In proceedings under Chapter IX-A of the Z.A. and L.R. Act the petitioner and his brother became sirdars. Thereafter proceedings under Sec. 145 Crimial P.C. were drawn between the parties. Respondents were held to be in possession, it appears that there were two cases one was decided in the year 1959 and the other in the year 1963. The proceedings under Sec. 240-H of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were also brought in connection with which a reference was made to the Civil Court for determining the rights of the parties as Bhumidhars. That reference was answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner in respect of plot no. 756 and 757. In respect of plot no. 746, it was held that they were not proved to be Bhumidhars. Who was Sirdar or Adhivasi was not decided. The petitioners and his brother filed a revision before this Court. In the meantime a suit for permanent injunction and possession over the disputed plots was filed That suit is still pending. In the meantime consolidation operations commenced. The suit and the revision were abated under Sec. 5(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereafter the petitioner filed objections before the consolidation authorities.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied upon the judgment of the Civil Judge which was subject matter of revision before this Court. That revision was abated under Sec. 5(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. As it was abated in the finding cannot be looked into nor could it be binding upon the parties.