SHIV PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLI DATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Swatantra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Adya Prarsad Tewari, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Civil Suit No. 95 of 1976 filed by father of private respondent No. 4 against petitioner for specific performance of con-tract dtd. 14/3/1973, was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dtd. 8/1/1980. A Suit No. 128 of 1980 under Sec. 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act") filed by father of respondent No. 4 against the petitioner, was alleged to be decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide judgment and decree dtd. 28/4/1983, directing to record the name of Shanker Dayal and Daya Shanker, after expunging the name of petitioner Shiv Prasad from the plot in question. It is further alleged that khata No. 722, consisting of plot Nos. 219, 220, 215, 223, 227, 229, 231, 280, 297 and 313 (total 9 plots), area 6.16 acre was recorded in the name of Shanker Dayal son of Chandra Bhan Tiwari, father of respondent No. 4 in the basic year of consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, an 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") was filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer. In the aforementioned objection, parties have adduced their evidence. The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 11/2/2005 dismissed the aforementioned objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. Appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner was heard and dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 31/1/2022. The revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner is pending as Revision No. 315 of 2022 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur. In the aforementioned revision, application dtd. 5/4/2025 was filed on behalf of the petitioner to consider the certain evidence in the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order, disposed of the application dtd. 5/4/2025 vide order dtd. 6/5/2025. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by the petitioner is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and during pendency of revision, an applica-tion dtd. 5/4/2025 has been filed to con-sider the certain evidence with respect to the authenticity of the proceeding under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has disposed of the application in arbitrary manner. He submit-ted that evidence annexed along with the petitioner's application dtd. 5/4/2025 fully demonstrate that the case in which the decree was alleged to be passed under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, is not recorded in goswara and missalband, as such, no right will accrue in favour of the private respondents. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the evidence annexed along with the application dtd. 5/4/2025 should be considered in the pending revision in proper manner. He placed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of U.P. and others, 2025 (8) ADJ 181 (SC). in support of his submission.