BABU LAL Vs. D.D.C., SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute relates to the Khata No. 815 which was recorded in the name of father of the petitioner namely Ram Adhar son of Bhaggu. It is urged that upon the commencement of the consolidation operations in the village in question behind the back of the father of the petitioner, an order was passed dtd. 4/7/1979 by the A.C.O. whereby the name of Arjun, the predecessor in interest of the private respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was recorded. It is the case of the petitioner that the same is fraudulent inasmuch as Arjun was son of Makku but he with deliberation got his name incorporated as Arjun son of Bhaggu and in this way, the relationship has been completely changed and by projecting himself to be the brother of the petitioner, he claimed rights to the property.

(3.) It is further urged that the father of the petitioner expired in 1996 and since the petitioner was living in a different State on account of exigency of his service, he was not aware of the aforesaid proceedings. Only when he had come to his village when the father of the petitioner died and thereafter upon making inquiries, the aforesaid fraudulent entry came to light, hence an appeal was preferred against order dtd. 4/7/1979 alongwith an application for condonation of delay.