JAG NARAIN Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 21-8-1975, 7-11-1974 and 24-9-1974 (Annexures 10, 9 and 8 respectively ).

(2.) PROCEEDINGS are under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. C. H. Act. There appears to be no dispute about certain facts and therefore for the purpose of disposal, the facts in brief will be useful to be summarised.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the admitted factual position which is born out from the record, judgments of the Courts below are erroneous and therefore it is the case where even no remand is required and the writ petition is liable to be allowed by this Court. Submission is that on the basis of the registered sale deed in petitioner's favour the suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was filed against Buddhu, the father of the respondents which was decreed on 22-4-1958 and thereafter, neither Buddhu nor his heirs has ever challenged the correctness of that decree in the competent forum and therefore, that will operate against them and thus it is sufficient ground for accepting petitioner's claim about his rights as claimed in the consolidation proceedings. It is further submitted that going into the validity of the sale deed by the Consolidation Courts and giving of the findings that petitioner has not been able to prove the sale deed is beyond the scope of scrutiny as on the findings given by the Consolidation Officer the sale deed has not been held to be void and therefore, respondents having not challenged the validity of the sale deed before the competent Civil Court it was not open for the consolidation authorities to ignore its worth. Submission is that merely on account of non mutation of the name of the petitioner for long time on the basis of the registered sale deed or on the basis of the decree in his favour the worth of either the sale deed or of the decree cannot be ignored and on that ground it cannot be held that the rights of the petitioner has extinguished. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act it was obligatory on the part of the revenue authority/official to have recorded the name of the petitioner as has been held by this Court in its decision given in the case of Ambika Prasad and others v. Kamla Prasad and others reported in 1972 R. D. page 77. On the aforesaid premises submission is that the judgment of the consolidation authorities are liable to be quashed.