GOVIND Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

(2.) The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main prayers :

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that when the village had come under consolidation, Jhabbu Lal i.e. father of respondent No. 4 filed an objection under Sec. 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 with regard to Gata No. 226 for his co-tenancy right on the said gata and opposing the co-tenancy rights of Shivparsan. The objection of Jhabu Lal i.e. father of respondent No. 4 was rejected, against which Jhabbu Lal preferred an appeal on 30/5/1994. During the pendency of appeal, Shivparsan had executed a registered sale deed on 18/4/1997 in favour of petitioner for Gata No. 226 and since then, the petitioner was in possession of the said land.