RAM AUTAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners seek a relief for quashing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia dated 24-11-1975 and the orders of the Settlement officer of Consolidation, and Consolidation Officer.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition, are that in the basic year plot nos. 133 and 135, which are subject matters of dispute situated in village Rekua Nasirpur, Pargana Sikandarpur Garbi, district Ballia, were entered in the name of the petitioners as Sirdars. Contesting respondent Jamuna and others filed an objection under Section 9 of U. P., Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming their exclusive possession since long over the disputed plots and other several plots but I am not concerned with those objections or dispute except the two plots referred to above. The petitioners contested the claim and objection of Jamuna and others that it was their exclusive sridari and there has already been a litigation between the petitioners and contesting respondents Jamuna and others and the petitioners instituted Suit No. 707 of 1964. The suit was decreed exparte on 28-6-1964.

(3.) IT has also come in the pleadings of the parties that Jamuna and others were also setting up the claim for the Gaon Sabha but admittedly, at no stage has come forward to deny or dispute the rights of the petitioners. According to the petitioners once that order under Section 229-B attained finality no other materials was to be considered and on the strength of that decree the petitioners were entitled to succeed and the orders of the consolidation authorities for expunging the names of the petitioners over the two plots, are arronous on the face of it. IT has also been urged that a perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation would go to show that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a new case for which there was no material and no occasion arose for carving out such a case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely ignored the effect of the final decree. IT may be an exparte decree but once it has attained finality, the respondents are debarred from agitating the same matter in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act and the observations of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merit about possession and title of the parties was neither permissible under the law nor it was the case of Jamuna Prasad and others that after the decree dated 28-6-1964 they have acquired fresh rights. The observations of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that at one place in the judgment of the Board of Revenue instead of 28-6-1964-14-8.1964 has been written and on account of this typing error or accidental mistake incorporating a wrong date without ascertaining it as a question of fact, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken the view that there appears to be two decrees and on that ground he has totally ignored the finality of the decision Inter parties in proceedings under Section 229-B.