MOHAMMAD GHANI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was recorded in the basic year over the plots in dispute. The fourth Respondent, Wajid Ali, filed objections. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer rejected the objections. They held that the Petitioner was in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli and was declared to have become sirdar under Ch. IX -A of the UP ZA and LR Act. The Deputy Director, on the other hand, has reversed the orders. He held that the Petitioner has not established that he was in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli though he was recorded in the revenue papers in 1359 Fasli. The entry of 1359 Fasli alone does not confer Adhivasi rights unless cultivatory possession is established. With reference to the proceedings under Ch. IX -A the Deputy Director held that the order Under Sec. 240 -J will bind only the tenant -in -chief and not the 4th Respondent who was a stranger claiming sirdari rights for himself against the person in whose favour the order Under Sec. 240 -J was made.

(2.) The view taken by the Deputy Director is the same as taken by a Division Bench in Jagdamba Prasad Misra v/s. Rafiuddin, 1967 AWR 298 where the Bench held that the entry of the name of a person as Adhivasi or sirdar in the compensation statement was no bar against the consolidation authorities deciding whether the Appellant or the Respondent was the Adhivasi or sirdar of the plots. They further held that the words "person interested" in Sec. 240 -J of the UP ZA and LR Act mean the person interested in receiving compensation. They also held that there was no provision in Ch. IX -A for the filing of objection by persons claiming to be Adhivasis or Sirdars of the land acquired or for their adjudication, According to this decision the compensation statement will be binding and final as against the State and l]he land holder, that is to say, persons interested in receiving and paying compensation.

(3.) In Smt. Asghari Begum v/s. Deputy Director, Consolidation Writ Petition No. 1193 of 1966 decided by a Division Bench consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Dwivedi and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Khare on 3 -5 -1966 it was with reference to the compensation statement observed that,