DHANI RAM Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of Sri R. C. Sharma, Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16-11-1970, by which he has dismissed the revision of the writ petitioners and allowed the revision of opposite party No. 3,

(2.) The dispute relates to plot No. 63 measuring a bigha 5 biswa and 6 biswansis situate in village Salarpur Pargana Dewa Tahsil Nawabganj district Barabanki. It was recorded Banjar in the basic year in the village record. Earlier to the consolidation proceedings the petitioner's father filed a suit for declaration of this bhumi-dhari rights over the grove. The suit was dismissed by Munsif Barabanki. The appeal filed by the petitioner's father was also dismissed by the Civil Judge, Barabanki. A second appeal was pending in the High Court at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the second appeal abated.

(3.) In the objection taken under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the petitioners claimed to be bhumidhars of the plot in dispute stating that the plot grove was ancestral. They also claimed rights by adverse possession. Opposite party No. 3 Gaon Sabha contested the objection and alleged that the plot was Banjar and not a grove and the entry of Banjar in the village papers was correct. It is alleged in the petition in para. 6 that no resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha as also that there was no authority of the Gaon Sabha to engage a lawyer. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 8-5-1967 allowed the objection of the petitioners to be Bhumidhars of the same. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 9-11-1967 allowed the appeal in part and held that a portion of the plot which is marked as 'A' at the sketch map prepared by the Commissioner was in possession of the petitioners and their grove with regard to the areas of the portions marked as 'C' he held that they were not in the character of grove, nor in their possession on the date of vesting and they were rightly recorded as Banjar and vested in Gaon Sabha. With regard to portion marked as 'B' he also held that the objectors could retain possession over the trees as scattered one but the same cannot be treated as their grove.