VINDESHWARI Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri J.K. Sinha, for the petitioner. Although the case is taken up in revised call of the list but Counsel for the respondents is not present. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 11.10.1984 and Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 28.12.1988, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The dispute between the parties relates to plot 358/1 (area 0.700 hectare) of village Sarikalan, pargana and district Baharaich, which was recorded in basic consolidation year khata 110/104, along with other plots, in the name of Vindeshwari (the petitioner). Jita (re -spondent -3) filed an objection under Sec. 9 of the Act for recording his name over the land in dispute. It has been stated by Jita that he was agricultural labourer and belonged to Schedule Caste. He had been in possession over the land in dispute since before 30.6.1975 and acquired right of sirdar (bhumidhar with non -transferable right) under Sec. 122 -B(4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The objection was contested by the petitioner, who had stated that he also belonged to Schedule Caste and land in dispute along with other plots were allotted to him by Land Management Committee since before 1970. On the basis of patta, his name was recorded over the land in dispute and he was continuously in possession over it. Jita was never in possession of the land in dispute.

(3.) The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 31.12.1980, allowed the objection of Jita. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order, which was allowed by appellate Court by order dated 30.11.1981 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after giving opportunity of evidence to the parties. After remand, Consolidation Officer, by order dated 17.8.1982, found that Jita could not prove that patta of the land in dispute of Vindeshwari was canceled nor on the basis of alleged order dated 27.10.1970, the name of Vindeshwari was deleted from revenue record. Jita could not file any documentary evidence to prove his possession over the land in dispute. The land in dispute was through out recorded in the name of the petitioner as such no right under Sec. 122 -B(4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 could be given to Jita over it. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of Jita.