SHYAM SHANKAR Vs. ISRAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the respondent no. 4 and Sri Tiwari holding brief of Sri S.K. Patel for the opposite party no. 1 who has filed a caveat.

(2.) AFTER the matter was heard at length, on the basis of the facts already brought on record, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the matter can be disposed of finally at this stage itself without waiting for any further affidavits, inasmuch as, the details are already contained in the orders which require consideration on the strength of the submissions raised. Learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha also contend that the matter can be disposed of finally at this stage itself and no further affidavits are required to be filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) THE said order appears to have been followed by a development which has given rise to the present controversy, namely, an exchange under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, between the Gaon Sabha and one Prem Chand. The land which was directed to be recorded in the name of Ganesh under the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 7.12.1983 continued to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha even after the said decision and taking advantage of this position, Prem Chand entered into a transaction of exchange which was allowed by the competent authority vide order dated 26th April, 1990. This appears to have been transacted without noticing the order in favour of Ganesh dated 7.12.1983 and without notice to him. Thus the same holding which was claimed as part of the holding of Ganesh became subject matter of exchange between Gaon Sabha and Prem Chand.