MEWA LAL Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Upendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plot no.376 and 377 situated at Village- Narainpur, Manwarpara, Pargana-Nagar West, Tahsil- Haraya, Basti was recorded in the name of respondent nos.2 and 3, namely, Prabhakar Singh and Sudhakar Singh sons of Uma Shankar Singh in the basic year of consolidation operation. Petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 filed objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in respect to plot no.377 and petitioner nos.4 to 7 filed objection in respect to plot no.376 alleging that they are Shikami tenant of Ram Anjor Singh and after date of vesting they became Adhivasi later on Sirdar. It is further alleged that right of main tenant extinguished before he executed sale deed dtd. 3/1/1963 in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3 and petitioners continued in possession since prior to the date of vesting till the start of consolidation operation hence name of respondent nos.2 and 3 be expunged and petitioners be recorded as Sirdar of the plot in question. The suit under Sec. 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) filed by petitioners were ultimately abated. Respondent nos.2 and 3 claimed right of bhumidhar on the basis of sale deed executed on 31/1/1963 by Ram Anjor Singh. The issues were framed before Consolidation Officer and parties lead evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 8/9/1975 disposed of the objection directing to record the name of petitioners as Sirdar declaring their share after expunging the name of respondent nos.2 and 3. Appeals under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act were filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 8/9/1975 which were registered as Appeal Nos.73 and 74. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 21/11/1980 dismissed the aforementioned appeals. Respondent nos.2 and 3 filed two revisions under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation which were registered as Revision No.498 and 499. The aforementioned revisions were heard and allowed vide order dtd. 2/11/1981 setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officers and Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as declared the respondent nos.2 and 3 as bhumidhar of the plot in question hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the impugned revisional order dtd. 2/11/1981 passed by respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti.

(3.) This Court admitted the writ petition on 1/12/1981 and stayed the operation of the impugned order dtd. 2/11/1981. On the stay vacation application filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3, the interim order dtd. 1/12/1981 was confirmed subject to condition that the petitioners shall deposit Rs.750.00 annually till the decision of the writ petition. According to petitioners they are depositing Rs.750.00 annually till date.