GAON SABHA, KANERI Vs. SANMAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute relates to plot No. 1670/2. In the basic year this plot was recorded in the name of Sanman Singh. Several persons filed objections. The Consolidation Officer rejected the various objections and, on the finding that Sanman Singh was a tenant of the land in possession, held that his name should continue. Aggrieved, Ramdhari Singh filed an appeal. The Asstt. SO (C) held that the entry of the name of Sanman Singh was fictitious. There was no evidence that the plot was ever cultivated. The GO was not justified in allowing the name of Sanman Singh over plot No. 1670/2 though he was justified in rejecting the claim of Ramdhari Singh. On these findings the appeal was partly allowed and it was directed that the name of Sanman Singh will be expunged from plot No. 1670/2 and that the plot will continue in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Thereafter Sanman Singh and Ramdhari Singh filed revisions. The Dy. Director went into the merits of the case and after elaborately discussing the evidence, agreed with the finding of the SO (C). He accordingly dismissed the revisions.

(2.) SANMAN Singh thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned single Judge held that the Gaon Sabha did not file an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. That order became final as against it. Thereafter the Dy. Director had no suo motu power to interfere with that order. On this view, the orders of the Dy. Director as well as the Asstt. SO (C) in regard to plot No. 1670/2 were quashed, with the result that the order of the GO became operative in regard to this plot. Under that order the name of Sanman Singh was to be recorded because he was found to be the tenant of the plot in possession.

(3.) RAMDHARI Singh and Sanman Singh had filed revisions. The Dy. Director was thereupon called upon to go into the merits of their claims. He agreed with the SO (C) on the merits. Similarly, on the merits he found that neither of these claimants had proved their title. He, therefore, dismissed the revisions. This is not, therefore, a case of suo motu exercise of power by the Dy. Director. He did not pass orders on his own. He only disposed of revisions filed by the parties on the merits.