JAGDISH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10th January, 1975 and 4th June, 1974 (Annexures -3 and 2 respectively) and also judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4th August, 1975 by which petitioner's application to re -hear the matter was rejected.

(2.) THERE appears to be no dispute about the fact that petitioner was recorded in the basic year record as seerdar. An objection was filed by the respondent No. 4 claiming bhumidhari rights over the land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 30th November, 1960, executed by Kumar who was original recorded tenure holder. Claim of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner happened to be in cultivatory possession in 1359 fasli and thereafter he has been in continuous possession and thus by virtue of the entry in 1359 fasli he has become adhivasi and seerdar and in any view of the matter subsequent possession being adverse on that ground also he has perfected his rights. Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence as has been recorded in the order of the Consolidation Officer upon which Consolidation Officer by order dated 4th May, 1973, rejected objection filed by the respondent No. 4 and maintained the basic year entry. Respondent No. 4 on filing appeal, succeeded vide judgment of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 4th June, 1974 who directed expunction of the name of the petitioner and for recording of name of respondent No. 4 as bhumidhar. Revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 10th January, 1975 and thereafter application to re -hear the matter was also rejected on 4th August, 1975 and thus two orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and one of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as referred above, are under challenge before this Court.

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Consolidation Officer by giving finding about possession of the petitioner in 1359 fasli has accepted his rights and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation to have reversed that finding and as it has not been done, the Judgments are legally vitiated. Further argument is that the petitioner has proved his continuous possession and in fact respondents have neither pleaded nor it has been found by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the possession of the petitioner in 1359 fasli was unlawful and therefore, in view of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act petitioner has acquired right of adhivasi and thereafter seerdar. Lastly, it has been submitted that voluminous documents showing petitioner's possession and title as has been relied upon by the Consolidation Officer has not been referred and the reasonings and findings given by the Consolidation Officer has not been met and reversed by the two Courts and therefore, on this score also the impugned judgments needs interference by this Court.