DUJAI Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3. None has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties 4 to 9.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court against the orders dated 8.5.1980, 15.9.1970 and 29.1.1970 passed by the Consolidation authorities. The brief facts of the case are that, in the basic year, the name of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records over Khata No. 82 of Village Daudpur Pargana Peer Nagar Tehsil Sidhauli district Sitapur. The opposite parties 4 to 9 filed objection claiming co-tenancy rights. The opposite parties 5 to 8 also claimed their rights by adverse possession over the land in dispute.

(3.) The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the evidence on record has recorded a finding that the land is coming down from the time of Chain who was the common ancestor and accordingly allowed the objections of the opposite parties and granted them co-tenancy rights by the order dated 29.1.1970, The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer filed appeal as provided under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order date 15.9.1970 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the petitioner approached to the Deputy Director of Consolidation by filing a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 11.5.1971 allowed the revision. The opposite parties being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation filed writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1971. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 8.5.1980 dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the consolidation authorities the petitioners have approached this Court.