MUNNI LAL Vs. D. D. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. Vinod K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot No. 499 Ba area 1 bigha 10 biswa 8 dhur situated in Village Makanpur, Pargana Bhadohi, District Varanasi. In the basic year entry khatauni, the afoementioned plot was recorded in the name of Udit Narayan by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dtd. 9/12/1965. The name of Sarabjeet and Lalta were also recorded as co-tenure holders over the land in dispute and area of plot No. 499/2 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa and area of plot No. 499/3 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa 10 dhur. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dtd. 9/12/1965,C.H. Form 11 was accordingly prepared. The aforementioned plot was chak out hence in C.H. Form 23 those plots were recorded in the name of Udit Narayn, Sarabjeet and Lalta. The bhoomidhari sanad was accordingly issued in favour of Udit Narayan, Sarabjeet and Lalta. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dtd. 4/10/1968, the nature of the land was recorded as bhoomidhari instead of sirdari. Sarabjeet died accordingly name of his son Paras Nath was recorded by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dtd. 20/6/1968. Udit Narayan, Paras Nath and Lalta transferred the aforementioned plot to petitioner through sale deed accordingly name of petitioner was recorded as bhoomidhar after expunging the name of Udit Narayan and others vide order dtd. 14/10/1968. Respondent No. 2, Jay Murat filed an objection on 20/8/1974 under Sec. 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act along with an application under Sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay of about 9 years claiming himself to be sole bhoomidhar of the plot in question, as such, it has been prayed that name of petitioner be expunged from the revenue records. The date of the knowledge in the application for condonation of delay mentioned by respondent No. 2 was 16/8/1974. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 28/8/1974 dismissed the aforementioned objection filed by respondent No. 2. An appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No. 2 against the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 28/8/1974 which was registered as appeal No. 8704. Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 25/2/1975 dismissed the appeal affirming the order of Consolidation Officer by which the objection filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Respondent No. 2 filed revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as revision No. 383/1072/12902. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 25/1/1984 allowed the revision set aside the appellate order dtd. 25/2/1975, order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 28/8/1974 and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the impugned orders dtd. 25/1/1984 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, 25/2/1975 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 28/8/1974 passed by Consolidation Officer.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 28/9/1984 admitted the writ petition and granted interim order staying the operation of the impugned revisional order dtd. 25/1/1984 passed by respondent No. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi.