RAM MURAT Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the death of learned counsel, who was representing the contesting respondents, card notice was issued to them to engage another counsel. They did not engage any other counsel.

(2.) Heard Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for petitioners.

(3.) A title dispute in respect of agricultural land in dispute was raised before the consolidation authorities. The matter was registered as Case No.4249 under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, Ram Murat and others Vs. Dargahi Lal and others on the file of Consolidation Officer (III), Sadar Sultanpur. The C.O. decided the matter on 05.01.1974 directing that the names of Dargahi Lal and others, original opposite parties No.2 to 6 be expunged from the revenue records over plots No.849 and 893 and the names of petitioners should be entered with equal share as sirdar under Clause-II (Varg-2). Against the said order, contesting respondents filed Appeal No.164, which was dismissed on 17.06.1974. Against the said order, contesting respondents filed Revision No.4591/202. D.D.C. Sultanpur allowed the revision on 30.01.1980 holding that petitioners (who were opposite parties in the revision) completely failed to prove their possession over the land in dispute. Orders passed by C.O. and S.O.C. were set aside and basic year entry when consolidation started was directed to continue. Order of the revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition.