MADAN LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava on behalf of respondent No. 3.

(2.) The dispute in the present case pertains to the property which has been alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner by means of auction conducted with regard to arrears of land revenue as the recorded tenure-holder, Gulab, who had taken a loan from Land Development Bank, could not repay the loan. Accordingly, part of his property was auctioned, which is alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner.

(3.) That matter was considered before the Consolidation Officer where the petitioner had filed all the material to demonstrate his title over the disputed land but in the proceedings under Sec. 9-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the application of the petitioner has been rejected recording the fact that the land situated at gata No. 180/5.44 acres was recorded in the name of Sri Ram, son of Gulab, resident of Village Ghoorkheda, Pargana Kheri, Tehsil Lakhimpur, District Kheri and subsequently half portion of the said land i.e. 1.15 acre came to be recorded in the name of Chandrika and Heeralal sons of Puttulal who have purchased the same by means of a sale deed dtd. 22/1/1992 and their names have also been recorded in the revenue records. After sale of the aforesaid land 4.82 acres was left with Sri Ram son of Gulab. He has further taken into consideration that with regard to fasli year 1391 to 1396 against gata No. 180/5.44 acres name of Sriram was recorded and for fasli year 1397 to 1402 with regard to 3.13 acres of gata No. 180-M names of Chandrika and Heeralal sons of Puttu Lal along with Ram Asre, Bhailal came to be recorded. He has further stated that no reason have been indicated in the revenue records as to how names of Madan Lal, Ram Asre and Bhai Lal came to be recorded in the revenue records. He has further considered that claim of the petitioner that in case they had purchased the land by means of an auction then the sale certificate ought to have been registered and no registration certificate or payment of stamp duty in this regard is available on record.