JAGDISH Vs. SAHAYAK SANCHALAK, CHAKBANDI ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C.B. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that village Kapoorpur, Pargana + Tehsil- Hapur, District Ghaziabad came under the operation of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. C.H. Act"). In the basic year of consolidation operation, Richpal Singh was recorded over chak no.10. Richpal Singh expired on 21/1/1975. Respondent nos. 3 & 4 filed an application under Sec. 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act, stating that they are the sisters of deceased Richpal Singh, as such, they are entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh. Petitioner also filed an application under the guardianship of his natural mother Smt. Shanti Devi under Sec. 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act, stating that petitioner was adopted by Richpal Singh on 25/10/1974 on the basis of adoption deed executed on 25/10/1974, accordingly, petitioner is entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh. The aforementioned applications under Sec. 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act were registered as Case No.4/753-75/2012, Mst. Imriti vs. Richpal Singh. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. Two issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer. The 1st issue was as to whether Smt. Imriti and Smt. Gomti are entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh as sisters of deceased Richpal Singh and 2nd issue framed was whether petitioner Jagdish is entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh, on the basis of adoption deed alleged to be executed in his favour by Richpal Singh. The Consolidation Officer, considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, has held that petitioner is entitled to be recorded on the basis of adoption deed and claim set up by respondent nos. 3 & 4 Mst. Imriti Devi and Mst. Gomti Devi was rejected vide order dtd. 4/6/1982. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 4/6/1982, an appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by respondent no. 3 which was registered as Appeal No.197 (Mst. Imriti Devi vs. Jagdish and Others). The Settlement Officer of Consolidation heard the aforementioned appeal and vide order dtd. 16/9/1983, allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.3 and directed to record the name of respondent nos. 3 & 4 / Mst. Imriti Devi and Mst. Gomti Devi in place of deceased Richpal Singh. Against the appellate order dtd. 16/9/1983, a revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by petitioner Jagdish which was registered as Revision No.1480. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order dtd. 19/6/1984 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief:

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 13/7/1984 and stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute. In pursuance of the order dtd. 13/7/1984, parties have exchanged their affidavits.