TRIBHUWAN DUTT MISRA Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Tribhuwan Dutt Misra and arises from consolidation matter.

(2.) IN the basic year records Smt, Raj Pali, widow of Sheo Shanker, was re corded as Bhumidhar of disputed plot Nos. 151, 152, 154 and 155 in village Kakrahia, Pargana Mijhaura, Tahsil Akbarpur, district Faizabad. She sold her Bhumidhari rights in plot Nos. 151, 152 and 154 to the peti tioner by a sale deed executed on 14-8-1961 and made an oral transfer in respect of plot No. 155 in favour of the same person. At the very outset, it may be stated here that these transfers of the disputed plots by Smt. Raj Pali in favour of the petitioner were at no stage challenged before the con solidation authorities. Patiraj, opposite, party No. 3, filed an objection under Sec tion 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act claiming rights in Plot Nos. 151, 152 and 154 and another objection was filed under Section 9 of the said Act by Udai Raj and Abhai Raj, sons of Ram Asrey, oppo site parties Nos. 4 and 5 claiming rights in Plot No. 155 with the allegation that they were Asamis of Smt. Raj Pali who was a widow and her disability having come to an end on 14-8-1961 and no suit for ejectment having been filed by her or by the petitioner subsequently under Section 202 of the Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act during the prescribed period of three years, they had acquired Sirdari rights in the said plots. This averment contained in para 4 of the petition was admitted in para 5 of the coun ter-affidavit with this additional assertion that the opposite parties had been in continuous possession over the disputed plots since the lifetime of the husband of Smt. Raj Pali. The consolidation officer rejected the objec tions of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 holding that they were never in possession over tha disputed plots and did not possess any rights. The opposite parties appealed before the Set tlement Officer Consolidation who upset the findings of consolidation officer holding that the opposite parties were in possession over the disputed plots and held them to be Asamis of Smt. Raj Pali. The Settlement Officer Consolidation directed expunction of the name of the petitioner from the record and entry of opposite parties name in his place.

(3.) IT may be stated here that in their counter-affidavit the opposite parties denied that the petitioner was ever in posses sion over the disputed plots and asserted their own continuous possession. In para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner ad mitted that opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 were Asamis of Smt. Raj Pali, who was a disabled person within the meaning of Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and reaffirmed that Smt. Raj Pali had dispossessed the opposite parties from the disputed plots before execution of the sale deed in petitioner's favour and deli vered possession of the disputed plots to the petitioner.