ABHIRAJI Vs. D D C & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria (respondent-1) dated 16.09.1992 passed in Revision No. 548, Abhiraji Vs. Shanti and others, order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Hata, Deoria (respondent-2) dated 16.11.1987 and order of Consolidation Officer, Hata, Deoria (respondent-3) dated 03.09.1987, in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings the Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) Dispute relates to plot No. 3916 (area 0.46 acre) of village Basahia alias Kaptanganj, tappa Parwarpar, pargana Haweli, tahsil Hata, district Deoria. In basic consolidation record, name of one Abdul Gani was recorded as 'sirdar' and name of Abhiraji (the petitioner) was recorded in class IX of the khatauni. During field to field partal in consolidation operation, an area of 0.16 acre of plot No. 3916 was found as abadi and remaining area of 0.30 acre was found in cultivation of Mst. Shanti Devi (respondent-4), accordingly in CH Form-5, possession of respondent-4 was recorded. The petitioner, respondent-4 and Abdul Gani filed objections under Section 9 (2) of the Act, claiming the land in dispute. All the objections were consolidated and tried together. Later on Abdul Gani abandoned his claim. On behalf of the petitioner, copies of khatauni of 1359 F, Khasra of 1359 F, khataunis of 1370 F to 1377 F were filed and witnesses Almeen, Isha and Khalil were examined. Smt. Shanti Devi filed khatauni of 1323 F and examined witnesses Pauhari Sharan and Bhagwan. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 03.09.1987 found that from the documentary evidence it is proved that an area of 0.16 acre of plot No. 3916 was converted into abadi which was also found during partal in consolidation as well as by Settlement Officer Consolidation in his spot inspection report dated 08.12.1975 accordingly he directed for recording 0.16 acre area of this plot as abadi in column VI of the khatauni. The Consolidation Officer, however, did not advert to the arguments of Smt. Shanti Devi that entries in favour of the petitioner were forged on the ground that possession of Smt. Shanti Devi was not established on the remaining area of 0.30 acre of the land in dispute, therefore he directed for maintaining entries of basic consolidation year in respect of that area of the land in dispute.