JAG NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.P. Tiwari as well as Mr. Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsels for the contesting respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 128 area 3-12-3 belong to Vidya Niwas and Vidya Saran having one-half share each. Petitioner Nos. 8 to 12 are the legal heirs of Vidya Saran who executed sale deed dtd. 16/5/2002 in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 to 7. The sale deed dtd. 16/5/2002 was rectified by way of rectification deed dtd. 26/6/2003 executed by the petitioner Nos. 8 to 12. Smt. Parmesara wife of Vidya Niwas who had also half share in the disputed property executed sale deed dtd. 26/10/1978 in favour of contesting respondents. Smt. Parmesara had also executed rectification deed dtd. 11/2/1992. Chak No. 95 was carved out in the name of petitioner Nos. 8 to 12 whereas chak No. 64 was carved out in the name of contesting respondents. There was no partition between the parties in respect to the aforementioned plot. The aforementioned plot No. 128 was divided in five sub-divisions. The particular of the same are as follows:-

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no order by any competent authority for division of the plot No. 128 in sub-division, as such, the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities are wholly illegal. He further submitted that this Court has remanded the matter back before Settlement Officer Consolidation in order to examine as to whether there was any division of plot No. 128 and whether different number had been allotted to different parties of plot No. 128 but Settlement Officer Consolidation without examining that aspect of the case in proper manner has dismissed the revision filed by petitioners. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioners has also been dismissed without considering the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. He further submitted that Settlement hectare has been recorded in khata No. 19 in the name of Jugul Kishore and others and in khasra Nos. 1394 to 1397, the aforesaid plot No. 128/1 area 294 hectare is recorded in the name of Jugul Kishore as sole tenant although there is no order of any competent authority for the sub-division of the plot No. 128. He further submitted that appellate Court has also failed to consider the aforesaid entry of sub-division of plot No. 128 which was made due to fraud and collusion of the contesting respondents and the revenue authorities. He further submitted that petitioners as well as contesting respondents are co-sharer having one-half share each and there is no partition, as such, consolidation Lekhpal has no jurisdiction to divide the plot under Sec. 7 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that there is no objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act although the objection under Sec. 9 of U.P.C.H. Act was very much pending before consolidation authorities. He further submitted that Rule 24 (d) of U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954 has not been followed, as such, the impugned orders are wholly illegal. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment Bakhatawar Khan v. Add. Commissioner and others, 2019 (143) RD 334. in support of his argument.