MANGROO Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioners pray to quash the Revisional Order, dated 9-3-1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi (Respondent No. 1) in Revision No. 1964 preferred1 by Respondent No. 2, Lallu against Kishore and others.

(2.) SRI Triveni Shanker, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that Kishore aforementioned had died issueless.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasons given by the revisional authority for remittance are erroneous and accordingly the impugned orders be quashed as it was not the case of Respondent No. 2 that the construction on the disputed land was made after the publication of the relevant notification under the Act. The Consolidation Officer has not made any reference to any evidence adduced by any party. In fairness to the learned counsel I must consider his further submission that Aakar Patra, as contained in Annexure-1 clearly show that the lands are recorded in the consolidation proceedings as abadi under column No. 16 and also as abadi on the spot under column No. 24 and that in Jot Chakbandi Aakar Patra as contained in Annexure-2, it has been stated as Chakbandi Bahar (i. e. out of consolidation) and thus it should be presumed that the land in question was an abadi from before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings. He also further submitted that Section 5 of the Act bars construction of any house without any prior permission and it was not the case of Respondent No. 2 that he had taken any prior permission before making the construction or any construction was. made, by him without any permission permand was unnecessary.