SITA RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) In the basic year the name of the Petitioner was recorded over the disputed plots. Objections were filed by the Respondents Ram Nath and others before the Consolidation Officer claiming sole sirdari right as heirs of Buddhu. The case of the Respondents was that Buddhu was recorded over the land in dispute since the year 1309 fasli and the name of Ambar son of Buddhu continued to be recorded in 1333 fasli and it was for the first time in 1349 fasli that the name of Puddu the father's father of the Petitioner was recorded. The Respondents allege that the name of Puddu from the branch of the Petitioner was wrongly recorded. Oral evidence was led by both the parties. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 25.6.1970 allowed the objection of the contesting Respondent and directed that the entry of the name of Sita Ram, the Petitioner be expunged. On appeal filed by Sita Ram the Settlement Officer, Consolidation reversed the decision. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation relied upon the fact that consistently from 1358 fasli the Petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute. He also placed reliance upon Khasra entries of 1361 to 1370 fasli. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation recorded the finding that Ram Nath and others could not establish their possession over the disputed plots. On revision filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by Ram Nath and others the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He recorded the finding that for the first time in 1349 fasli the name of Puddu came to be recorded and before 1349 fasli the entries were in favour of the branch of the Respondents. He found it established that the Respondents were in possession. In order to arrive at that finding the Deputy Director of Consolidation relied upon an admission made by Sita Ram that he has nothing to do with the land of Buddhu. He also relied upon the fact that the Petitioner was a resident of village Dharamdaspur whereas the land in dispute is situate in village Paltupur. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the name of Puddu the grand father of the Petitioner was recorded on account of confusion arising out of similarly of his name with that of Buddhu. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also found that there was abadi upon the disputed land. For arriving at that finding he placed reliance upon the argument of the counsel of the Respondents Ram Nath that the land in question forms part of their Sahan and there exists charani and pucca well thereupon and it is a form of abadi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation directed therefore that the name of Sita Ram be expunged and the land in dispute be recorded as abadi.

(3.) Sri S.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the question of possession is perverse and has been arrived at without considering the material that was filed by the Petitioner and relied upon by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He referred to the Khasra entries of 1361 to 1370 fasli and also upon the entry of 1358 and 1349 fasli. It was submitted by Sri Singh that the oral evidence of the parties has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at all nor he has considered the irrigation receipts filed by the Petitioner. Having considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties it does appear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to take into account the irrigation receipts and effect of long standing Khasra entries of 1358 fasli and 1361 to 1370 fasli. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also relied upon the admission made by the Petitioner that he had nothing to do with the land of Buddhu. It is well settled that an admission in order to bind a party must be unequivocal. A statement that a party has nothing to do with the land of the other party cannot be an unequivocal admission, that the disputed land belongs to the other party. Such a statement is not the admission of the claim of title of the other party. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also not considered the oral evidence. In the circumstances the finding on possession recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained as it is vitiated for non-consideration of the materials on the record.