BHOLA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the basic year the petitioner Bhola was recorded as a tenant of the disputed plots but in the remarks column there was an entry of possession in Varg 9 of the respondent No. 3 Mahadeo. Objections under Sec. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Mahadeo the respondent No. 3 for expunging the entry of the name of the petit oner-Bhola on the ground that the respondent No. 3 had matured rights by adverse possession. Before the Consolidation Officer the parties led oral and documentary evidence. The Consolidation Officer found that respondent No. 3 Mahadeo had matured right by adverse possession. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer the petitioner Bhola preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed Bhola's appeal by order dated 11.2.1982. The respondent Mahadeo preferred a revision, which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by impugned order dated 12.10.1984. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that respondent No. 3 Mahadeo had matured rights by adverse possession. The present writ petition has been filed by Bhola.

(2.) I have heard Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mahadeo.

(3.) Before the consolidation authorities the documentary evidence included the extract of the khasra 1370-1380 fasli in which Mahadeo is shown as being in possession. The Khatauni of 1372 fasli was filed in which there is an entry of the lame of Bhola in the tenant's column and there is a reference to an order of the supervisor Kanoongo dated 23.1.1961. The Consolidation Officer relying upon the khasra entries of 1370-1380 fasali had found the possession of the respondent No. 3 Mahadeo. The Settlement Officer Consolidation however recorded a finding that the entries in the khasra were not backed by the issuance of Form P.A. 10 as the page number of the Lekhpal's diary and the date is not shown and that it has not been proved that P.A. 10 was issued and served upon Bhola. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the finding and has found that entry of possession in favour of respondent No. 3 Mahadeo was a valid entry. However, the specific finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation that the P.A. 10 was not proved to have been issued and served upon Bhola and that the entry was unreliable in view of the fact that no reference to the page number and date of the Lekhpal's diary has been made has not been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation no doubt has noted in his order the contention made on behalf of respondent No. 3 that P.A. 10 was issued and was served upon Bhola and that there is a thumb impression of Bhola but no specific finding has been recorded by him upon the point. In the counter affidavit also the respondent No. 3 has not filed any document to indicate that the contention, which was being advanced on his behalf the Deputy Director of Consolidation was correct. As regards the oral evidence also all that has been stated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the Balli one of the witnesses of the respondent No. 3 was reliable and that the petitioner did not examine any witness. The order of the Consolidation Officer, however, indicates that the petitioner had examined himself as a witness. No doubt the Deputy Director of Consolidation has referred to the statement of Balli but has not discussed the oral evidence. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that even the Settlement Officer Consolidation has not discussed the evidence on the record including tire oral evidence. There is some merit in his contention. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, cannot be sustained and the matter has to be examined afresh. On the point as to whether the matter should be sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation or to the Settlement Officer Consolidation Counsel for the parties agree that the matter may be sent back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation.