RAM NARESH Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this petition, the petitioner Shri Ram Naresh and two others have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17.8.1981 (Annexure-10), 7.1.1981 (Annexure-8) and 17.5.1980 (Annexure-7), passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria, Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow, Camp Padrauna and the Consolidation Officer-II, Deoria respectively.

(2.) According to the petitioners, Plots No. 1306, 1307/1, 1309, 1311, 1313 and 1319, area 5.5 acres belonged to Dil Mohammad. Umat Yakub, Nasrullah and Mastedeen before the abolition of zamanindari. All of them surrendered their tenancy rights in the aforesaid land and ceased to have any concern with all the plots. The petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu, husband of the petitioner No. 3 entered into the possession over the entire land and in this way, they acquired khudkast right and eventually became bhumidhar on the date of vesting. However, due to the inadvertence on the part of the revenue authorities, the names of Dil Mohammad and other erstwhile tenure holders continued to be recorded in the revenue records. The petitioners moved for correction of the records by filing a case before the Tehsildar, Padrauna which was later transferred to Panchayat Adalat, Dadopur for decision. During pendency of the case relating to correction of papers, an objection was filed by Nasrullah and others but they subsequently executed registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu on 8.8.1952. Mastedeen died before execution of the sale-deed. The panchayat Adalat directed by its order of August 10, 1952 that the petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu be recorded khudkast holders of the land in dispute. As a matter of fact, Nasrullah and others admitted in the sale-deed executed by them that the petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu had khudkast rights in the land in question. In this way, the petitioners were recorded under Section 9 (1) of Zamindari Abolition Act as bhumidhars of the land in dispute but the respondent No. 4 Smt. Roshan Bibi filed an objection under Section 9 (2) claiming her to be the co-tenure holder of the land in question. The petitioners resisted her claim and alleged that Mastedeen died heirless and the petitioners became owners of the land in question on the basis of their long continuous possession. However, the Consolidation Officer during the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act rejected their claim and allowed the objection of Roshan Bibi and recorded a finding that she was the rightful claimant of her one fourth share in the land in dispute. Being aggrieved of the said order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the Act but the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 7.1.1981 (Annexure-8). The petitioners then preferred a revision under Section 48 (1) of the Act on various grounds but the Assistant Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision vide his order dated 17.8.1981 (Annexure-10).

(3.) Feeling aggrieved of the order of the revisions, the petitioners filed this writ petition with the allegation that Roshan Bibi, respondent No. 4 was not the widow of Mastedeen and whatever the right Mastedeen had in the plots in question, was surrendered by him at the time of handing over possession over the entire land to the petitioners 1 and 2 and their brother Lal Babu. The petitioners 1 and 2 and Lal Babu were the bona fide purchasers of the land from Nasrullah and others and as Nasrullah was sole heir of Mastedeen, the latter's tenancy rights were also duly transferred by him. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the petitioners that they had acquired ownership over the land in dispute by adverse possession, a fact of which Roshan Bibi was aware of throughout. None of the authorities has appreciated the petitioners' case and the evidence adduced in support thereof. The Assistant Director of Consolidation observed that the petitioners failed to prove their possession and the alleged possession was illegal and the same did not confer any right. As a matter of fact, the Assistant Director of Consolidation failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners.