BHAGAUTI PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.5.1973, passed by the Consolidation Officer in case No.1344/1150 of 1973, the order dated 4.9.1973, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgarh in appeal No.286 as also the order dated 17.12. 1980, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh in revision No.5337/2653/3724/1355/695/320. The dispute relates to land No.523, measuring 0.14.5 bigha. The indisputed facts are that in the first and second settlement the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Permeshwar Dayal, who had been the petitioners' grant father. However, in the third settlement it was recorded as Parti.

(2.) THE petitioners' claim that even after recording the land as Parti their ancestors were in possession over the land in dispute. They planted the trees including the fruit trees. When the dispute arose before the Consolidation Officer, he made stop inspection and reported the age of the trees about 25 to 30 years on 2nd of April, 1973. However, through his order, the Consolidation Officer recorded the finding that keeping in view the age of trees, it is evident that on the date of plantation of trees, the land was recorded as Parti, therefore, it cannot be said that these trees had been planted by the petitioner's ancestors. It has also been observed that there is no evidence to prove that there was any permission for plantation of trees by Zamindar. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been upheld by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision on the same very grounds.

(3.) AFTER enactment of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the rights of the erstwhile tenure holder who remained in possession or the intermediaries and tenants vested with them and they were made entitled to take or retain possession as a Bhumidhar thereof under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act is extracted below:-