HARIHAR NATH D Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein are the orders dated 2 7.12.1967, 26.1 1.1969 and 11.11.1974, passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.

(2.) The land in dispute is recorded as talab in the basic year and petitioners had their names recorded in column No. 6 of the khatauni. On publication of the record under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, objections were preferred under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the petitioners claiming themselves to be 'sirdar' and placed reliance on Khasra Nos. 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1368 and 1370 fasli to buttress their claims. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 27.12.1967 containing direction to record the land as Gaon Sabha land and to expunge name of the petitioners from column No. 6 of the khatauni. In appeal as well as in revision, this order of the Consolidation Officer received affirmance of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively. It is in the above backdrop that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution came to be filed in this Court.

(3.) The precise submissions advanced across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land in dispute was recorded as talab in 1320 fasli and their ancestors were shown to be tenant in 1320 fasli and since they have been in possession from the time of their ancestors over the talab, it Is further submitted, they have graduated to become owner of the talab. The learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that no bhumidhari or sirdari rights under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act could be conferred on petitioner over talab land, still he sought the relief of declaring them as bhumidhar. In vindication of the stand that rights of Zamindar extinguished after the date of vesting but if a person was tenant of talab, he acquired the position of an owner of the same, the learned counsel placed credence on a decision of this Court in Nirhjihin Kumart and Ors. v. Gram Samaj and Anr., 1980 RD 164, the applicability of which shall be considered in the latter part of this judgment.