SHIV RAM Vs. D. D. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bansh Narayan Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot No. 134 situated in Village-Jagdishpur Pure Chandra, Pargana- Soraon, District- Allahabad. The aforementioned plot was recorded in the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 (Mathura Prasad and others). At the time of the verification of the records during consolidation operation, it was found that plot No. 134 had two division, i.e. 134/1 and 134/2. 134/1 area 9 biswa, 10 biswansi and plot No. 134/2 area 2 biswa 10 biswansi. Plot No. 134/2 was found to be abadi of petitioners' father (Sita Ram). Petitioners' father filed an objection with respect to the plot No. 134/2 area 2 biswa, 10 biswansi to the effect that he had been possession over the 2 biswa land of the aforementioned plot since long and remaining area was in possession of one Hari Lal, as such, both have become Sirdar. The aforementioned objection was registered as Case No. 13405 under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 20/9/1977 directed to expunge the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and further ordered to record the name of the petitioners' father in respect to plot No. 134 /2 area 1 biswa, 18 biswansi and remaining area (12 biswansi) was ordered to be recorded in the name of Hari Ram. Petitioners' father (Sita Ram) filed a civil Suit No. 906/1980 for permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The aforementioned suit was decreed by the trial Court. Petitioners' father filed an application for implementation of the order dtd. 20/9/1977 passed under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of decree of civil Court. The Consolidation Officer directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 7/2/1985 to submit report in the matter. The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 20/3/1985 allowed the application and directed for amaldaramad of the order passed by civil Court. Against the order dtd. 20/3/1985 respondent No. 4 filed an application dtd. 13/6/2002 for restoration on the ground that order dtd. 20/3/1985 was an ex-parte order. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 18/9/2002 allowed the restoration application dtd. 13/6/2002 filed by respondent No. 4 and set aside the order dtd. 20/3/1985. Consolidation Officer has also dismissed the application dtd. 7/2/1985 as not maintainable. Petitioners' challenged the order dtd. 18/9/2002 by way of appeal under Rule 109-A (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Rules), which was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/7/2004. Against the order dtd. 29/7/2004, petitioners filed revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, which was registered as Revision No. 1473, Respondent No. 4 also filed a revision, which was registered as Revision No. 1880 before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned Revision No. 1473 filed by petitioners was dismissed vide order dtd. 19/10/2004, while the Revision No. 1880 filed by respondent No. 4 was admitted, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the orders dtd. 19/10/2004, 29/7/2004 and 18/9/2002 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(3.) This Court entertained the mater vide order dtd. 29/10/2004 and granted interim order staying the further proceedings in Revision No. 1880, under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act.