WASIQ ALI Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal arises out of a dispute in regard to plot No. 867 situate in village Silla Vishanpur, Pergana Koil, district Aligarh. When Consoli dation proceedings started in the village afore said, the plot stood recorded inter alia in the names of the appellant and respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 filed an objection asserting that the appellant had no right in the plot and that his name may be expung ed. This objection was allowed by the Con solidation Officer, but on appeal by the ap pellant it was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. On second appeal by respondent No. 4, the Deputy Director of Consolidation set .aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. A revision filed by the appellant was ordered to be dismissed by the Commissioner on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the amendment of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in 1963. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by a learned Single judge by his judgment under appeal.

(2.) MOHAMMAD Ali Khan, Asghar Ali Khan, Mahmood Ali Khan and Hamid Ali Khan were the co-sharers of the aforesaid plot. The share of Asghar Ali Khan and Mohammad Ali Khan were auctioned in exe cution of a decree passed in suit No. 182 of 1932 by the Munsif Koil district Aligarh on 7-10-1942. It was purchased by the appel lant. In due course, a sale certificate was issued in his name and possession was deli vered through Court on 16-10-1943. It is not disputed that the name of the appellant was mutated in revenue records and continu ed to be recorded therein, As already point ed out. his name was recorded even in the relevant Khatauni when the consolidation pro ceedings started. The name of the appellant has been ordered to be expunged on the ground that the plot in dispute being agricultural land was not liable to be sold by a civil Court and, consequently, no title passed in favour of the appellant by virtue of the auction referred to above. The Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation, while allowing the second appeal of respondent No. 4, also held that the appellant was not in possession on his own admission.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the first submission of counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the notification of the year 1934. The said notification is as fol lows: