NIADAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the orders dated 21-9-74, 24-8-71 and 26-3-68 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer respectively, are sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are few and simple. Plot No. 574-A was recorded as Sir of one Kazi Abdul Salam and Plot No. 574-B and 575 were recorded as Sir of Smt. Hiyatunnisa. But in the basic year these plots were entered as Bhumidhari of one Suraj Bali, respondent no. 4. THE petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming sirdari rights on the basis of possession since 1357 Fasli, i. e. prior to the enforcement of UP ZA and LR Act. THEse plots were, in fact entered in the name of one Deo Saran on the basis of a sale deed executed in his favour in 1942. THE basic year entries in the name of respondent no. 4 were sought to be expunged.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent no. 4, on the other hand urged that the order passed by the Custodian became final and in case the petitioner was feeling aggrieved either with the order of Custodian or with the sale certificate in favour of respondent no. 4, he should have preferred an appeal under Section 24 or a revision under section 27 of the Act. But he did not do so and the said order cannot be challenged. Any civil or revenue suit to challenge the order of the Custodian was barred by Section 46 of the Act. Further under Section 48-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it has been clearly provided that the orders passed by the Custodian cannot be challenged before the consolidation authorities. One of the factum of presence or absence of Smt. Hiyatunnisa on the relevant date must have been challenged by the petitioner when the proceedings under the Act were in progress.