DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amol Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 while Sri Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi has appeared on behalf of caveator-respondent No. 5.

(2.) The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition pertains to the property which was recorded in the name of his grandfather, namely, Sitaram, who died sometime in 1963. On the death of Sitaram the land came to be recorded in the name of Maina Devi and on the death of Maina Devi by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer passed in case No. 263 dtd. 8/12/1963 gata No. 177 was directed to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad - the father of the petitioner. On the same day i.e. 8/12/1963 by another order passed in case No. 261 by Assistant Consolidation Officer the land situated at gata Nos. 1275, 1276, 1277, 1281, 1293-M, 1293, 1294, 1295 and 1299 (nine gatas) were directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram, the predecessor in interest of respondent No. 5 after deleting the name of Gaya Prasad. Petitioner is son of Gaya Prasad who died in 1972 but the petitioner came to know about the order dtd. 18/12/1963 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No. 263 wherein the land was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram when it was found that after the death of Rajaram on 31/3/2021 on the basis of a registered gift deed on 10/12/2000 an order was passed for mutating the name of Reeta Devi i.e. opposite party No. 5 with regard to the said nine gatas mentioned here-in-above.

(3.) The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, before whom the appeal was instituted by the petitioner, has rejected the same on the ground of delay. It was noticed that the petitioner has instituted the proceedings after extra-ordinary long length of 58 years and the said delay could not be satisfactorily explained by him. It was further recorded that the said land was recorded in the name of father of the petitioner i.e. Gaya Prasad, whose name was directed to be deleted from the revenue records and the land was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram. Gaya Prasad did not choose to challenge the order dtd. 8/12/1963 despite the fact that he was alive for nine years after passing of the said order and it is only in 2023 that the petitioner instituted the appeal against the said order.