SUNDER LAL Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Satish Chandra Sitapuri, for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, for respondents -2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.12.2005 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) THE dispute relates to basic consolidation year khata 40 consisting plot 601 (area 2 -7 -0 bigha) of village Allunagar Diguria, pargana and district Lucknow, which was recorded in the names of Mohd. Latif and Mohd. Shafiqui (now represented by respondents -2 and 3). Lakhan son of Bhawani (now represented by the petitioner) filed an objection under section 9 -A of the Act, for recording his name over the land in dispute, claiming himself to be bhumidhar in possession of it. The petitioner took the case that land in dispute was his tenancy holding since before date of vesting. He planted grove over it and gave it to Kasim Khan to look after the grove. After death of Kasim Khan, his widow Batasa was looking the grove. After death of Batasa, the respondents got their names mutated over it although they had no concern with the land in dispute. The respondents contested the case on the ground that Kasim Khan was recorded occupant of the land in dispute since before the date of vesting as such under U.P. Land Reform Supplementary Act, 1954, he had become adhiwasi under Section 240 -A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and thereafter sirdar. After death of Batasa widow of Kasim Khan, they, being daughter's sons, inherited the land in dispute. They deposited 20 time of land revenue and acquired bhumidhari right over it on 10.8.1970.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner proved that name of Lala was recorded since 1332F as hereditary tenant of the land in dispute. After date of vesting he acquired bhumidhari right over it. The grove was planted by Lala. Kasim Khan was permitted to look after the grove. It has been proved from the oral and documentary evidence on record that grove was through out over the land in dispute. No adhiwasi right can accrue over the grove land. There are no person in the village of the name of Lala son of Matadin. Matadin was written for Bhawanidin due to mistake of Patwari. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have concurrently held that names of Kasim Khan or the respondents were recorded over the land in dispute without any basis. Entry of the name of Kasim Khan of the year 1363F was held to be forged. The respondents could not produce any paper to show that any proceeding was ever held before competent authority under section 240 -A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. No right can accrue to any person on the basis of forged entry. If bhumidhari certificate was obtained on the basis of forged papers, then it itself will not confer any right to the respondents. He submits that entire evidence was of the parties were on the record. Gaon Sabha never claimed any right over the land in dispute. In any case, under section 11 -C of the Act, consolidation authorities are fully authorized to pass any order in favour of State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha. No remand was required. Or.of respondent -1 is illegal and be set aside.