RAM DEO Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4-11-80 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, allowing the revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19:4 (for short the Act).

(2.) THE land in dispute was contained in Khata No. 1111. Plot No. 2937 area 0.47 was entered twice and plot no. 2937 was Matruk. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act was filed by the petitioners alleging that plot no. 3937 was incorrectly entered twice rather at one place it must have been 2937 and plot no. 3937 was entered at two places as plot no. 2937 could not be entered at the proper place and it became consequently Matruk. It was further alleged that Sri Mangru, father of the petitioner was entered in 1356 Fasli with three years duration and the entries in his came continued till 1362 Fasli and proceedings under Section 240 (G) were also started and they were decided in favour of Mangru holding him to be sirdar and the names of all the land holders was ordered to be expunged. ZA Form 101 etc. were issued where Mangru was shown to be adhivasi and in case the contesting respondent no. 2 etc. (the land holders) wanted to challenge the entry of Adhivasi in the name of Mangru in proceedings under Section 240-G of the Act, they should have challenged the same by filing objections. But as those proceedings became final, they would operate as res-judicata and hence the claim of respondent no. 2 etc. may be dismissed. During Consolidation Partal respondent no. 2 etc. were shown to be in possession. An objection was filed by respondent no. 2 etc. alleging that they were in possession and that the petitioners or their father had incorrectly been entered and their names may be expunged ; that one Mohammad Ismail was the original tenure holder and he executed a sale deed dated 18th June, 1958 in his favour and that the names of vendees may be entered as bhumidhar and this names of the petitioners may be expunged.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand urged that as Mangru died before the date of vesting, hence even though he was recorded as occupant in 1356 Fasli, but he could not acquire adhivasi rights and the proceedings under Section 240-G of the Act did not become final as respondent nos. 2 etc. who had no knowledge about the same nor they were served with notices.