RAM SINGH Vs. D. D. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. V.P. Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the substituted contesting respondent No. 3.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to khata No. 119 situated in village-Gongaband, Pargana-Kheragarh, District-Agra. One Mst. Phoola who was recorded tenure holder of the plot in question had executed a registered sale-deed in favour of petitioner and respondent No. 3 on 1/8/1966. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed dtd. 1/8/1966 petitioner and respondent No. 3 came in possession over the same as well as both of them were recorded in the mutation proceeding initiated by them on the basis of registered sale-deed dtd. 1/8/1966. In the basic year of consolidation operation, petitioner and respondent No. 3 were recorded over the plot in question. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, petitioner filed an objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") for partition of his 1/2 share. Respondent No. 3 claimed 3/4 share in the plot in dispute. The objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was registered before the Consolidation Officer as Case No. 809-810/ 428. Consolidation Officer framed issues in the aforementioned title objection about the share of the parties in the disputed plot. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidences in support of their case. Consolidation Officer after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties decided the objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act vide order dtd. 12/6/1984 holding that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 shall be entitled to 1/2 share each and khata No. 119 shall be partitioned between petitioner and respondent No. 3 accordingly. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 12/6/1984, appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No. 3, which was registered as Appeal No. 293 of 1984. Settlement Officer of Consolidation heard the parties and vide order dtd. 27/9/1984 allowed the appeal and held that the petitioner will be entitled to 1/4 share and respondent No. 3 shall be entitled to 3/4 share. The petitioner challenged the appellate order dtd. 27/9/1984 by way of revision under Sec. 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Direction of Consolidation, Agra which was registered as Revision No. 50. Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties dismissed the revision vide order dtd. 1/11/1985, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the revisional order dtd. 1/11/1985 and appellate order dtd. 27/9/1984.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 6/2/1986 admitted the writ petition and granted interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioner from his existing chaks. This Court vide subsequent order dtd. 11/5/1987 modified the interim order dtd. 6/2/1986 to the extent that parties to the writ petition shall maintain status quo with regard to their possession over the land in dispute.