RAM ANJORE Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (FINANCE AND REVENUE)/DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, AMBEDKAR NAGAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for opposite party No. 1 as well as Mr. Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Gata No. 3184, which was initially recorded as abadi and banjar was shown in the revenue records as Gata No. 3184/1 to 3184/6 and accordingly C. H. Form No. 5 was issued. Nobody including the opposite parties raised objection against the entry of the said Gatas. Since no objection was raised, the statement of principle was confirmed and accordingly plot No. 3184/2 bearing area 13 bighas and 18 biswas was mentioned as abadi, plot No. 3184/3, bearing area 16 biswa and plot No. 3184/4 bearing area 18 biswas were mentioned in the name of the opposite party No. 2 and fathers of opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 and 8 to 12 as agricultural land, containing few trees, as they were granted pattas over the bary'ar land for agricultural purposes and accordingly their chaks were carved out over their original holding. Nobody including the opposite parties raised any objection claiming therein to record the said land as grove land. Thus, in the said manner the consolidation operation was de-notified on 26th of February, 1988. However, after some time the petitioner came to know that the said Gata was entered in the revenue record in the name of opposite party No. 2 and opposite parties 2 to 13 as grove land. The petitioner filed an objection stating therein that the said land was never grove land as there were no trees except 2-3 trees of the opposite parties standing in the abadi land. Subsequently he came to know that the map of the said land was got changed by the opposite parties 2 to 13 with the collusion of the consolidation officials. Then the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation stating therein that over the land in dispute the petitioner's house is constructed and the appurtenant land is being used for convenient living inasmuch as the land was recorded as abadi land in the revenue record, as Gata No. 3184/9 bearing area 13 bighas and 18 bis was and it was never changed through the report of the consolidator. The error in the map was accepted and the same was recommended for correction. Accordingly the Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared a reference with recommendation to correct the error according to actual spot position. More so the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation also recommended for modification of the map in accordance with the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Further the spot inspection was made by the consolidator and a report was submitted on 20th of May, 2006, which mentions that plot No. 3184/9/2 was in the form of abadi over which the house of the petitioner is situated. The report further discloses that there was only two trees of the opposite parties 2 to 13. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the reference by means of order dated 29th of July, 2006 and held that there is an error in the map, which is liable to be corrected and accordingly issued direction to the Assistant Consolidation Officer to correct the map. Thereafter the opposite parties 2 to 13 filed a time barred restoration application before the opposite party No. 1 on 16.6.2007 stating therein that after 15th of September, 2003 they were not given any information about the case and also no opportunity of hearing was given to them. The petitioner contested the said application by filing objection with the averments that opposite parties 2 to 13 had been attending the Court of opposite party No. 1 and since they failed to attend the Court on the date of hearing, which was within their knowledge, knowingly, they are not entitled for any relief. The opposite party No. 1 allowed the application for restoration with the findings that the map of plot No. 3184/9/1 and 3184/9/2 has been corrected on the basis of the report dated 12.3.2006 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, whereas the village was de-notified from consolidation operation in the month of July, 1988. An objection under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act was already pending relating to the instant dispute.

(3.) THROUGH the short counter-affidavit the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the title objection preferred by the petitioner under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act in respect of plot No. 3184/9/1 has already been rejected by Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 13.4.2004 and against the said order no appeal or revision has been filed by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the opposite party No. 1 has observed that plot No. 3184/9/2 is recorded as grove from the time of ancestors of opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner wanted to get it recorded as abadi, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Court. It has further been submitted that the consolidation operation was de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1988 and the present proceeding has been initiated on the petitioner's application moved in 2002 after the lapse of 14 years, which is highly time barred and before entertaining the said application the opposite parties should have been given opportunity of hearing. Accordingly he has submitted that there is no error in the order impugned as it satisfies the compliance of the natural justice.