BHAIYA TIRATH RAJ SINGH Vs. DY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of arguments, no one appeared for contesting respondent, hence only the arguments of Sri T.C. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner were heard.

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title. Respondent No.4, Harbans Lal filed objections under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P.C.H. Act) claiming the land in dispute comprised in plot No.578, area 1.8 acre and plot No.651, area 0.5 acre on the basis of registered sale deed alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in his favour on 03.06.1970. In the basic year, the name of petitioner was shown in the revenue record as main tenure holder. All the three courts below, i.e. C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. decided the matter in favour of respondent No.4 and directed entry of his name as main tenure holder in the revenue record on the basis of the sale deed. The first order was passed by C.O. Isanagar, District Kheri in Case No.4234 to 4238 and 4294 on 28.09.1977. Against the said order, Appeal No.100/405 was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by Assistant S.O.C., Lakhimpur Kheri on 20.04.1978. Thereafter, petitioner filed Revision No.2748 of 1978. D.D.C., Lakhimpur Kheri dismissed the revision on 23.06.1980, hence this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner mainly argued that petitioner denied execution of the sale deed, however no categorical finding was recorded by any of the courts below particularly the D.D.C. regarding genuineness of the sale deed. Petitioner had denied his signatures on the sale deed. The second point argued was that respondent No.4 was minor when he purchased the property and his father already held more than 12.5 acres of land, hence sale deed was void under Section 154 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. This point was raised before S.O.C.