BALJIT Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) It has been alleged in the writ petition that Bhikchhuk, the father of the petitioner, was recorded as Bhumidhar of Plot No. 2931/1 in the revenue records relating to 1359 Fasli. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that Bhikchhuk was elder brother of the father of respondent no. 2 and his name was recorded in the revenue records of 1359 Fasli only in a representative capacity. During the consolidation operations held in the village, respondent no. 2 filed objections under Section 9A-(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') against the basic year entries in the revenue records which showed Bhikchhuk and consequently the petitioner as the sole tenure holder of disputed Plot No. 2931/1. The aforesaid plot was part of Khata No. 66 which was subsequently re-numbered as Khata No. 345. It also appears from the record that objection was also filed by respondent no. 2 in relation to Khata Nos. 88 and 256. It is an admitted case by the parties that objections were filed by respondent no. 2 before the Consolidation Officer which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The date of the order of Consolidation Officer allowing the objections of respondent no. 2 has not been stated in the writ petition filed by the petitioner but has been disclosed in the counter affidavit as 7.8.1974. It has been alleged by the petitioner that against the order of the Consolidation Officer allowing objections of respondent no. 2 in relation to Khata Nos. 88, 256 and 66, appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which were numbered as Appeal Nos. 1838, 1589 and 1582. It has been stated that Appeal No. 1582 related to Khata No. 66 and consequently the disputed plot. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the said appeals were disposed of by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 14.11.1972. It has also been stated that, vide his order dated 14.11.1972, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had allowed Appeal No. 1582 and remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. In support of his aforesaid contentions, the petitioner has annexed a copy of CH Form-23 which contains a recital substantiating the averments made by the petitioner in his writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that when the Consolidation Officer failed to act in pursuance to the order dated 14.11.1972, the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer praying to pass fresh orders in view of the order dated 14.11.1972 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 1582. Along with the said application, the petitioner filed a copy of CH Form-23. It was stated before the Consolidation Officer and has also been stated in the writ petition that after the alleged order dated 14.11.1972 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, there was a fire in the Collectorate building of Allahabad in which all the records relating to the Consolidation Department were destroyed which included the documents relating to the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was unable to file a certified copy of the order dated 14.11.1972. It appears that the said application was filed by the petitioner in 1987 and it transpires from the record that Case No. 565/466/88 of 1987 was registered before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A-(2) of the Act, 1953. The aforesaid case was contested by respondent no. 2 who denied that any order dated 14.11.1972 was passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation remanding back the matter to the Consolidation Officer. Respondent no. 2 also denied that any appeal was filed against the order of Consolidation Officer passed on his objections filed under Section 9A-(2) of the Act, 1953. Before the Consolidation Officer, it was alleged by respondent no. 2 that no appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the previous Consolidation Officer allowing the objections filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 9A-(2) of the Act, 1953 and that purported entries reproducing the contents of alleged order dated 14.11.1972 in CH Form-23 were forged and fabricated and, therefore, the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. However, the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 29.7.1987 accepted the plea of the petitioner and his assertion regarding filing of Appeal No. 1582 and order dated 14.11.1972 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and consequently fixed a date for re-hearing on the alleged objections. Against the order dated 29.7.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 which was numbered as Revision No. 994 and respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 15.11.1991 allowed the aforesaid revision by setting-aside the order dated 29.7.1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The order dated 15.11.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been argued by Sri Yatindra, counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not properly appreciated the records while holding that the existence of order dated 14.11.1972 was not proved and has not considered the recital in CH Form-23 regarding Appeal Nos. 1838, 1589 and 1582 which were made in a single stroke with the same ink and when respondent no. 2 had admitted about Appeal Nos. 1838 and 1589, he could not have denied the existence of Appeal No. 1582 and consequential orders passed in the same.