RAMAI Vs. D.D.C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.6.96 by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and revision filed by the respondent no. 3 Ram Nath has been allowed.

(2.) Proceedings are under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjudication of title between the parties. The dispute relates to the land which was initially recorded in the name of Sukhai who is claimed to be maternal uncle although that has been disputed by respondent no. 3 but there is no dispute about the fact that both parties i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 3 are real brothers. Claim of the petitioner is that at the start of the consolidation proceedings pursuant to the reconciliation arrived at before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 1496 decided on 17.7.82 petitioner was allowed 1/2 share in plot No. 746 and in the remaining land respondent was accepted to be the sole owner but on account of some mischief of respondent no. 3 right of the petitioner was recorded only over 1/4th share and in place of Plot No. 746 wrongly plot No. 786 was shown. Claim of the petitioner is that he filed appeal for getting the needed correction. According to his claim his appeal was partly allowed and only correction in plot number i.e. from plot No. 786 it was corrected as 746 but share of the petitioner as recorded in Khatauni extract pursuant to the reconciliation remained maintained. Claim of the petitioner is that against ''the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer he filed appeal and no appeal was filed by the respondent no. 3 and it is only against the order of the appellate authority revision was filed by respondent no. 3 in which prayer was made to set aside order of the appellate authority only. Revision was also filed by the petitioner. Revision of petitioner was dismissed but revision filed by respondent no. 3 was allowed and a direction has been given that on expunction of the name of Sukhai, name of Ram Nath alone will be entered as Bhumidhar. It is thus order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is under challenge.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent did not file any appeal against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and therefore, Deputy Director of Consolidation in allowing revision of the respondent no. 3 and in giving direction for recording of the name of respondent no. 3 alone on expunction of the entry in the name of Sukhai has not only committed an error but exceeded in his jurisdiction also as against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer which appears to be recorded in the Khatauni extract i.e. the Amal Daramad in respect to 1/4th right of the petitioner no appeal was filed by respondent and therefore that was to be maintained. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally taken note of the judgment and decree dated 28.8.78 passed on Original Suit No. 1795 of 1978 and placing reliance on that judgment, has illegally allowed exclusive rights to the respondent. Submission is that as there was no trial before the Consolidation Officer, the judgment of the revenue court dated 28.8.78 was not placed before the Consolidation Officer and therefore straightway acceptance of the rights of the respondent no. 3 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without any opportunity to the petitioner cannot be permitted and thus, submission is that judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is legally vitiated.