RAMESHWAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.R. Khan, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned Counsel for contesting respondents. In the basic year when consolidation in the area in question started agricultural land in dispute comprised in khata No. 158 was entered in the name of Lal Raghuraj Pratap Singh, respondent No. 4 in this writ petition since deceased and survived by legal representatives and his wife Shanti Devi. Lal Raghuraj Pratap Singh was son of Dewan Bhagwati Pratap Singh. Petitioners filed objections to the effect that they were in possession, hence their names must be entered in the revenue records over plot No. 467/5, area 1 bigha 2 biswas 10 biswansis. In respect of other sub -plots of plot No. 467, other persons filed objections contending inter alia that some of the other sub -plots were abadi.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' objections were rejected by C.O. Dhhakwa Patti, District Pratapgarh through order dated 10.2.1973 passed in Case No. 3736/1405. S.O.C., Dhhakwa Patti, Pratapgarh dismissed the appeal on 24.1.1974. Against the said order, petitioners filed Revision No. 11589/9110 (or 9100), Rameshwar v. Lal Raghuraj Pratap Singh, D.D.C., Pratapgarh dismissed the revision on 3.1.1977, hence this writ petition.

(3.) HOWEVER , the claim of the petitioners was rejected by the C.O. on the ground that the names of the petitioners were never entered in the revenue records on the basis of the patta. Petitioners themselves admitted that in 1957 their mutation application had been rejected by Tehsildar. Petitioners had filed copy of khatauni of 1370 and 1372 Fasli, in which names of the petitioners were entered in Warg -9 since 1368 Fasli. All the Courts below held that the entry was wrong as no khasra to support the same was filed. In any case, if patta had been executed then petitioners' name would not have been entered in Warg -9, instead of that their names should have been entered as sirdar/bhoomidhar. Subsequent khataunis also were not filed. It was also mentioned that no proceedings were ever initiated for getting the name of the petitioners entered in the revenue records (except mutation application filed after seven years which was also rejected) and no explanation for the said lapse was given. After rejection of mutation application, no declaratory suit under section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed.