RAM NEWAJ Vs. DDC ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad dated 17-5-1975 and 16-5-1975 (Annexures 5 and 4 respectively ).

(2.) SRI Ram Niwas Singh, learned Advocate appeared in support of this writ petition and SRI R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by SRI Rai appeared for respondents No. 2 and 3 and SRI Sheo Nath Singh, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of heirs of respondent No. 5.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner to challenge/oppose the claim of first set of claimants i. e. respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accepting claim/rights of respondents No. 2 and 3 has committed a manifest error for simple reason that findings of fact recorded by two Courts i. e. Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation has been illegally set aside in the revisional exercise. It is pointed out that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given judgment on wrong assumption of facts in respect to the judgment dated 9-4-1940 by saying that it was passed in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, although the fact has been proved to be otherwise. It is further submitted that by operation of law, petitioner having being recorded before date of vesting became Sirdar and continued in possession, paid land revenue exclusively and as such there being presumption of correctness of basic year entry, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly negatived petitioner's contention and gave fights to respondents No. 2 and 3 on the basis of old revenue entry which was explained to have been validly expunged. Submission is that long standing entry could not have been brushed aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In support of submission that ignoring the worth of long standing entry is not justified, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court given in the case of Ramesh Ramanarayan Dangare v. Vithabai and Anr. , reported in (2004) 8 SCC 298. In respect to the submission that findings of fact cannot be set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court given in the case of Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad, reported in 2001 RD 79; 2004 (8) SCC 298.