FAZLUR RAHMAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOILDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the present case, in brief, are that, initially plots in dispute were mentioned in revenue record as "submerged land". Contesting-respondents herein initiated proceedings when village was brought under consolidation and claimed right of sole ownership. The dispute reached up to Revisional Authority and land in dispute was recorded in the name of contesting-respondents.Other proceedings were also concluded in their favour and admittedly at that stage petitioners have neither made any claim on land in dispute nor participated in these proceedings.

(2.) At later stage, petitioners have filed objections under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as "Act, 1953") with an application for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned and it was deemed that objections were filed under Sec. 9-A of Act, 1953. The Consolidation Officer has framed following two issues:

(3.) Consolidation Officer after considering rival submissions rejected objections filed by the petitioners and rejected their claim of co-tenancy vide order dtd. 24/7/1972. Relevant part of order is extracted hereinbelow: