RAGHUNATH Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J Feeling ag grieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing a revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, whereunder while setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Of ficer, Consolidation in appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner preferred by him under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act claiming to be the tenure-holder of the land in dispute has been restored, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order passed by the revis ing authority.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter chal lenged the order of the Consolidation Of ficer by means of an appeal which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Of ficer Consolidation vide his order dated 19-6-1978. THE Assistant Settlement Of ficer, Consolidation held that the claim put forward by the petitioner should have been entertained under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as he was entitled to be recorded as tenure-holder of the land in dispute on account of the benefit secured in his favour under the provisions contained in Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. THE direction given by the appellate authority was that Raghunath, the petitioner be recorded as Sirdar under Section 122-B (4-F) and the land revenue be fixed accordingly.