RAJDEO Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Shukla for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 27.4.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute in the petition pertains to Plot No. 343 area 2 biswas. 17 dhoors and 371 area 7 biswas. These plots were recorded as Banjar. Since the petitioner was in possession over these plots and his house, trees, well, kal and kolhara existed thereon, he preferred an objection under section 9 -A. Thereafter a report was called for and it was reported that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and his house, trees, well etc. exist thereon and that this land is un -cultivable on the spot.

(2.) ON the strength of this report, it is alleged that these plots were kept out of consolidation operations and were entered under Ziman 4 in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that subsequently, in proceedings on an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the chaks of the petitioner and one Suleman, the predecessor in interest, of the contesting respondent were effected by an order dated 25.1.1968. This order is alleged to have been passed in Case No. 56/3432. Suleman thereafter sold his chak in favour of the contesting respondent in 1972. In 1978, an appeal was filed against the order dated 21.5.1968 by the contesting respondent which was dismissed on the ground of laches. The contesting respondent preferred a revision being Revision No. 44 (Jagannath and others v. Rajdeo and others). This revision has been allowed by the impugned order dated 27.4.1984 and the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 2.5.1978 and the Consolidation Officer on 31.5.1968 have been set aside and the chaks have been restored as existing at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the entire case of the petitioner is based on forged and fraudulent entries. No case under section 9 -A(2) as alleged by the petitioner was ever instituted and this is the reason no copy of this order dated 21.5.1968 alleged to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer has been filed. In fact, no such file exists and the entire reliance is placed upon an Amaldaramad of this order in the revenue records. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has directed correction in the revenue records after recording a finding that no record of Case No. 56/3432 exists. He therefore, submits that the order has been rightly passed and that manipulations have been resorted to by the petitioner on the basis of non -existent orders.