RAM ADHAREY Vs. MANGAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-3-1974 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ).

(2.) PROCEEDINGS are under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. C. H. Act in which claim of parties about their respective title has been decided. To dispose of the writ petition, brief summary of the facts will suffice.

(3.) IN response to the aforesaid, learned Counsel for respondents submits that decree in respect to two sets of plots of the years 1953 is said to be ex parte at first instance but thereafter as restoration was filed and again the matter was decided on the basis of compromise, the contention of petitioners that they were not aware about the decree and no notice/summon was issued or served cannot be accepted. Submission is that approach of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation about non implementation of decree and no steps to take possession is totally misconceived as in the decree itself, there is a mention that possession has been appropriately given and therefore, there was no occasion of taking any dakhal. Argument is that merely for the reason that entries were not corrected in the light of decree and thereafter in the light of mutation order, the effect of decree and benefits which are to accrue to the respondents cannot be taken away. IN respect to plot No. 276 etc. submission is that in 1356 Fasli, the land was shown to be Seer of Mangal, thereafter name of Ram Narain came, thus there is no explanation that how name of Mangal was omitted, and therefore rights of petitioners on the basis of transfer can be accepted. IN respect to plot No. 285, submission is that petitioner No. 4 has not connected himself with Soman in any manner who was initially recorded and as Soman was found to be farar, respondents have been rightly given rights on the basis of possession. Submission is that entries of possession in favour of respondents have been rightly believed and the decree passed in favour of respondents has been rightly relied upon to bar the claim of petitioners. Submission is that the finding so recorded by the Revisional Court being finding of fact, there being no perversity in it, this Court is not to interfere.