RAM KISHORE Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sudhansu Pandey / Sri Manish Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.3 and the learned standing counsel for the state respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khata no. 361, plot o. 111/1M, area 2.68260 hectare, situated at village Majhola, Pargana+Tahsil Chandausi, District Sambhal. Land in dispute belongs to the predecessor of the petitioners and the contesting respondent no.3 who were recorded bhumidhar of plot no.111/1M, area 2.8260 hectare. In order to appreciate the controversy, the family pedigree would be relevant which is as under:-

(3.) One Ram Prasad, co-sharer filed Suit No.45/35/02, under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act which was decided vide order dtd. 10/5/2002/3/6/2002 in which the partition has been made according to the respective share of the parties. Against the order dtd. 10/5/2002/3/6/2002, respondent no.3 filed a restoration application on 13/11/2007 which was allowed and the aforementioned suit under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act has been restored to its original number. Petitioner nos. 5 and 6 challenged the order, restoring the case to its original number by Revision No.57/2013-14, under Sec. 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, the Board of Revenue entertained the revision, summoned the L.C.R and granted an interim protection in the matter. During pendency of the aforementioned revision before the Board of Revision, the notification under Sec. 4(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has been issued in respect to the disputed plot, situated in village Majhola. Accordingly, Revision No.57/2013-14 has been abated vide order dtd. 1/7/2021. In C.H. Form 5, the name of every co-sharer of the plot in dispute has been recorded and an objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed which was registered as Case No.355 before the Consolidation Officer and the same was decided vide order dtd. 24/8/2018 by which the share of each co-sharer has been determined on the basis of compromise. Against the order dtd. 24/8/2018, contesting respondent no.3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal was registered as Appeal No.245/2021. In appeal, respondent no.3 has claimed the title on the basis of an adoption deed executed in his favour by Tikola, sone of Sukhari @ Sukari. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation), considering the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by respondent no.3 and maintained the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dtd. 24/8/2018. Against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dtd. 5/10/2021, respondent no.3 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Revision No.555/2022. The Deputy Director of Consolidation / revisional court vide order dtd. 30/3/2022, allowed the revision, set aside the order dtd. 24/8/2018 as well as 5/10/2021 and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision. In compliance of the revisional order dtd. 30/3/2022, the Consolidation Officer has accepted the claim of respondent no.3 on the basis of the alleged adoption deed and provided 1/2 share to the respondent no.3. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 24/6/2022, petitioners filed the appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Some of the tenure holders who were parties in the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer, filed revision against the order dtd. 24/6/2022 before the revisional court which was numbered as Revision No.614/2022. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation / respondent no.2 called for the record of Appeal No.328/2022, filed by the petitioners before him and converted the same into Revision No.691/2022. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 28/9/2022, dismissed the appeal / revision filed by the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition.