RIZWAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Present petition has been preferred assailing the orders dated 14.7.2003 and 29.4.2003 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) THE dispute in the instant petition takes within its sweep various plots, which were recorded as Gaon Sabha properties in the basic year. An objection was filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming bhumidhari rights over the properties on the dint of adverse possession as also by relying on varg 4 entry. THE Consolidation Officer who was seized of the objection allowed the same and pronounced the petitioners as bhumidhars over plots in question vide judgment dated 22.4.1995 attended with further direction to record the names of the petitioners as bhumidhars after expunging entry naming Gaon Sabha. Against the said judgment, appeals came to be preferred by the Gaon Sabha which culminated in being allowed and consequently, verdict rendered by the Consolidation Officer was set aside studded with direction to record entry accordingly in the relevant revenue record in relation to plots in question. This decision rendered by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation gave rise to three revisions out of which two revisions were preferred against the appellate order, i.e., Revision No. 380/596 filed by Meharban (petitioner No. 2) and Revision No. 376/592 preferred by Rizwan (petitioner No. 1). THEse two revision came to be dismissed by means of judgment/order dated 14.7.2003, passed by respondent No. 1. THE third revision, namely, Revision No. 375/591 pertaining to khata No. 642 plot No. 2309 was allowed in part and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) INDISPUTABLY, the plots in question were recorded as Gaon Sabha property in the basic year. There are no indicia on the record to vouch for the fact that on the date of vesting of property, petitioners or their predecessors were recorded in the revenue records. As a matter of fact, the petitions are staking their rights to the property on the dint of adverse possession and by reliance on varg 4 entry. In essence, the main plank of the argument is founded on adverse possession and on varg 4 entry and not that the petitioners or their predecessor had their names in the relevant revenue record on or prior to vesting of the property in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.