SIYA RAM Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajkumar Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel for the for the State.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation the name of the predecessor in interests of the petitioners were recorded over the plot in question. Against the basic year entry of the Consolidation operation, an objection under Sec. 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.CH. Act has been instituted by a third party (Rajkumar) and the entry made in the name of predecessor in interest of the petitioner has been expunged by the Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 31/7/1999 and the plot in question was ordered to be recorded as banjar land. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 31/7/1999, a restoration application was filed which has been rejected vide order dtd. 17/7/2000. Another restoration application filed was rejected vide order dtd. 10/4/2002. Against the rejection orders of restoration application and against the main order dtd. 31/7/1999 an appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioners, which has been allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 22/4/2004 setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 17/7/2020, 31/7/1999 and 10/4/2002 as well as directed to record the name of the petitioners over the plot in question. Against the appellate order dtd. 22/4/2004 a revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Land Management Committee and State of the U.P. along with the prayer for condonation of delay. The aforementioned revision filed by the Land Management Committee/ State has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dtd. 4/4/2006. The restoration application dtd. 16/5/2006 and 19/2/2008 filed against the order dtd. 4/4/2006 has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 4/3/2008.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 11/4/2008 entertained the matter and granted interim protection that no allotment of the land in dispute shall be made by the respondent No. 2/Land Management Committee. In pursuance of the interim order dtd. 11/4/2008 passed by the Court, the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.