GULAB SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claimed sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis of continuous possession for more than statutory period against the tenure holder.

(2.) THE Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had accepted the claim of the petitioner but in revision his claim has been negatived and aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN my opinion the class IX entry could be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1956 but it was made in this case by the Naib Tahsildar. Therefore, I think that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar in this case would be deemed to have been passed by a competent authority in view of the above quoted provision. If the order had been passed by Assistant Collector not in charge of the Sub-Division, I think that the aforesaid section would have helped the petitioner and the order could be deemed to have been passed by the Assistant Collector. Since the order has been passed by the Naib Tahsildar and at the relevant time it should have been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, I think that the defect cannot be cured in spite the above quoted provision. To my mind the revisional court has not committed any error in discarding the entry of class IX in favour of the petitioner.