MOHD ISMAIL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel for contesting respondents. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title in respect of plot No. 946, area 2 bighas 15 biswas. In the basic year, the said plot was entered in the names of petitioners as well as contesting respondents (or their fathers). Mohd. Yusuf, father of respondents No. 2 to 4 Altaf Husain respondent No. 5, Mohd. Amin respondent No. 8, Mohd. Moin respondent No. 6 and Mohd. Ali respondent No. 7 filed objections under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act asserting that the plot in dispute which was a grove exclusively belonged to their ancestor Khuda Bux however the names of petitioners (or their ancestors) were wrongly entered in the revenue record. Objections (Case No. 2336, M. Yusuf v. M. Ismail) were rejected by the Consolidation Officer, Aliganj on 5.11.1973. Appeal ( No. 466) was also dismissed by Assistant S.O.C. Sultanpur on 27.5.1974. Thereafter, contesting respondents filed Revision No. 1459, Mohd. Wasim and others v. Ismail and others. D.D.C. Sultanpur allowed the revision through the judgment and order dated 11.12.1979 and directed that only the names of contesting respondents shall be recorded in the revenue record over the land in dispute and names of petitioners shall be expunged. The order of the D.D.C. has been challenged through this writ petition.

(2.) THE D.D.C. mentioned that' the number of the plot in dispute in the first settlement was 450, in the second settlement, it was 829 and in the third settlement it was 946. The D.D.C. held that in the first settlement only name of Khuda Bux was there, however in the second and third settlement, name of ancestor of petitioners was also mentioned but the petitioners could not show that how in the second and third settlement name of their ancestor was entered in the revenue records. The Re -visional Court therefore concluded that the entries of second and third settlement were erroneous.

(3.) IN this regard reference may also be made to section 20 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act under which special status has been accorded to the entry of possession in khasras of 1356 Fasli. This aspect has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the following authorities: