SHAMBHU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners appear to have been recorded as bhuraidhars of plot No. 393/4 (area 196 Karis). This plot appears to be recorded as banjar. The Petitioners filed an objection claiming that they were the grove holders of this plot. Respondent No. 3 filed an objection that the plot constituted his Sahan etc. The Respondent's objection was rejected by all the authorities. The Consolidation Officer held that the plot was outside the consolidation, and, therefore, the ownership of the trees could not be decided by him. The Petitioners failed to prove that they were bhumidhars of the plot. He directed that the plot shall be recorded as banjar and the Petitioners' names be expunged. On appeal, it was held that the land in dispute was of the shape of a grove and hence the Petitioners were its sirdars and should be recorded as such. The Respondent went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the plot had been entered as banjar. The case of the Petitioners that they had planted the trees had not been gone into or decided. It was also held that the evidence on record did not prove that the Petitioners were the grove -holders, because they bad planted trees on land which was banjar. On these findings, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and directed that the plot be recorded as Gaon Sabha property.

(2.) THERE are several defects in the revisional order. It is by now settled that the Consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to decide questions of title relating to grove plots. In that connection, they have also jurisdiction to decide whether a particular plot is grove land or not. The fact that trees have been planted on banjar land is not at all relevant on the question whether a particular plot is a grove or not. In law, it is not necessary that a grove can be constituted only on land which is culturable. If trees are planted in sufficient number on banjar land, such land will also constitute a grove. The Deputy Director should have gone into the question whether the trees constituted a grove, and, in the next place, whether the Petitioners' case that they had planted the trees was made out.