VIJAY NARAIN Vs. DISTRICT D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.P. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhadohi and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the State- respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to the plots as mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the instant petition. According to the petitioners, the plots in dispute were granted on lease (patta) to the petitioners by erstwhile Raja of Banaras Estate on 6/6/1944 and the petitioners were accordingly in possession over the same. The consolidation operation started in the village in question in the year 1964. Petitioners filed objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.C.H. Act") for expunging the basic year entry of the ushar land in respect to the plots in question and further the petitioners be declared sirdar/bhoomidhar of the plots in question on the basis of patta executed by Banaras Estate on 6/6/1944. Gram Sabha filed objection to the claim of the petitioners, stating that plots in question are public utility plots, as such, petitioners cannot be declared sirdar/bhoomidhar of the same. The Consolidation officer, Gyapur, Varanasi vide judgment/order dtd. 1/5/1974 allowed the objection of the petitioners and declared them sirdar/bhoomidhar of the plots in question. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 1/5/1974, Gram Sabha as well as one Sita Ram have filed appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as Appeal Nos. 1660 and 1661. The aforementioned appeals were heard together and the same were dismissed by a common order dtd. 19/7/1977. Against the appellate order dtd. 19/7/1977, Sita Ram and others filed revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No. 80. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 20/2/1980 dismissed the revision. Against the order dtd. 20/1/1980, Gram Sabha filed a restoration application dtd. 27/2/1980 which was rejected on 31/10/1980. In pursuance of the order of the Consolidation Officer, which has been maintained in appeal and revision, reference proceeding under Sec. 48(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act was initiated by the petitioners which was registered as Reference No. 251. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 18/10/1983 allowed the Reference Case No. 251. Proceeding under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.C.H. Rules") was initiated by the petitioners, accordingly, an order dtd. 21/3/1984 was passed by the Consolidation Officer for compliance of the order dtd. 18/10/1983. Against the orders dtd. 18/10/1983 and 21/3/1984, a restoration application was filed by one Jaishri, son of Beni, stating that the impugned orders are ex parte. The petitioners filed their objections to the aforementioned restoration application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 20/2/1987, dismissed the restoration application filed by Jaishri, holding that order dtd. 20/2/1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the main proceeding had attained finality, as such, the restoration application against the order passed in the proceeding under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules as well as Sec. 48(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act is not maintainable.

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 21/11/2001 and stayed the operation of the order dtd. 10/10/2001 till time-bound period. In pursuance of the order of this Court dtd. 21/11/2001, parties have exchanged their pleadings. The aforementioned writ petition was dismissed in default but on the restoration application filed, the matter was ultimately restored.