MST. MOONGA Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.1987 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Padrauna -Deoria in Revision No. 154 Raj Bali v. Rajkokil. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Raghubansh and Haribansh sons of Swarup in the basic year but during partition the petitioner was found to be in possession. An objection was filed by respondent Rajkokil for recording his name on the basis of sale -deed dated 16th January, 1980 purporting to have been executed by Haribansh. Another objection was filed by petitioner claiming himself to be heir of deceased Haribansh and Raghubansh, The petitioner relied upon the following pedigree to support his case.

(2.) THE consolidation officer by his order dated 15th October, 1981 dismissed the objection of petitioner and ordered for recording the name of Raj Kokil after expunging the entries of possession recorded in class -7 in favour of petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 15th, October, 1981. The petitioner then preferred a revision. When the revision was taken up for hearing the counsel for petitioner sought adjournment. The adjournment application was rejected. Despite rejection of adjournment application the counsel for petitioner did not argue the case. The counsel for respondent was heard and revision was decided on merits, hence this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner then argued that the petitioner has been found to be in possession in the basic year which entry was to be maintained and on the basis of long standing possession the petitioner prescribed right. It is nowhere stated in writ petition that the petitioner in his objection before the Consolidation Authorities set up the claim of prescribing right on the basis of possession. The petitioner can not claim such a right for the first time in this writ petition. The matter does not end hear. From perusal of writ petition it appears that the sale -deed dated 16th January, 1980, on the basis of which respondent Rajkokil has succeeded before Consolidation Authorities, has been the subject matter of dispute between Haribansh and Rajkokil in civil suit No. 225 of 1984 Raj Bali v. Rajkokil in the court of Munsif, Deoria. It is averred in paragraph 11 of writ petition that the said sale -deed was cancelled by judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1985.