RAM RATI Vs. RAM NARESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.K. Barman learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Barman appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Singh appearing for the contesting respondents.

(2.) The dispute relates to plot No. 724. In the basic year the said plot was recorded as Pokhri. During consolidation proceedings an objection was filed by the petitioner to expunge the name of the Gaon Sabha on the ground that plot in dispute was settled in her favour by the then zamindar prior to zamindari abolition and since then she has been in possession and was cultivating the same. On account of digging of the soil for the purpose of construction the plot in dispute assumed the shape of 'Gaddha' in which rain water collected and had assumed the shape of 'Pokhari'. It was never Gaon Sahba property and has always been in possession of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.6.1981 dismissed the objection. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In support of her case the petitioner produced khatauni of 1363 Fasli to 1365 Fasli, the agreement with the Zamindar as well as the rent receipts. The then Zamindar was produced in evidence who proved the agreement and the rent receipts.

(3.) On the basis of evidence the Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that the land in dispute was settled in favour of the petitioner prior to Zamindari abolition and the petitioner has become bhumidhar and it has wrongly been recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha and thus allowed the appeal vide order dated 16.4.1983. The appellate order was challenged by the Gaon Sabha in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed on 30.5.1988. Therefore, one Smt. Vimla Devi, Up-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha and three other persons filed another revision against the order dated 16.4.1983. Subsequently, they moved an application not press the said revision which was allowed and the revision was dismissed as not pressed on 18.1.1997. After 9 year another revision was filed in the years 2002 by the contesting respondents challenging the order dated 16.4.1983 on the ground that the petitioner has obtained the order fraudulently. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 23.10.2002 allowed the same and set aside the appellate order dated 16.4.1983 and directed the land in dispute to be entered as 'Pokhari'.