MANDIR SHIVJI MAHARAJ, THROUGH PARMAL SINGH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER (DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION), MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed by Mandir Shivji Maharaj acting through Parmal Singh, a resident of village Biralsi Pargana Charthwal, in the district of Muzaffarnagar. The Petitioner is alleged to be the bhumidhar of khata No. 112 in the village in question and was recorded as the "Dholidar"(rent free grantee) in the settlement khatauni of 1296 F. It is alleged that Nanu, the father of opposite parties 2 and 3, who are Goshains by caste and the managers of the property of the petitioning temple, originally cultivated the land in dispute as a manager and in that very capacity, the Petitioners cultivated the land after Nanu's death. In proceedings Under Section 8 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act), after an inquiry into the correctness of entries in the revenue records, the opposite parties, Tara Chand and Chamela sons of Nanu, were recorded as managers of the land in dispute and the petitioning temple was recorded as its bhumidhar in the basic year. The correctness of this assertion made in para. 4 of the petition is admitted in para. 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting opposite parties. It is also admitted by the contesting opposite parties that they first set up a case as bhumidhars and after that, changed the case into one of sirdari rights only in proceedings Under Section 9 of the Act.

(2.) IN proceedings Under Section 9 of the Act, the Consolidation Officer held that no evidence had been produced on behalf of the temple although residents of the village Biralsi had filed an application that the opposite parties are the managers of the temple. It was found that the land had been entered, in the past, as the khudkasht of the opposite parties 2 and 3, Tara Chand and Chamela, which is also significant inasmuch as the possession of the opposite parties was thus assumed to be that of the zamindar. The contesting opposite parties were not alleged by anybody to be the descendants or successors -in -interest of a zamindar. The Consolidation Officer, however, did not appear to have appreciated the significance of the entries of the names of the contesting opposite parties, Tara Chand and Chamela, as cultivators of khudkasht land. The Consolidation Officer accepted the objections of Tara Chand and Chamela and ordered the land to be recorded as the sirdari of the contesting opposite parties.

(3.) THE question which arises for consideration is whether the entries made Under Section 8 of the Act for the basic year after due inquiry can be considered as evidence upon the record at all. It is contended on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that the entries made Under Section 8 of the Act were the subject matter of dispute in proceedings Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act so that the Joint Director was right in excluding them as pieces of evidence and holding that there was no evidence on record to prove that the contesting opposite parties were managers on behalf of the temple. I am afraid I am unable to accept this view of the matter. The entries Under Section 8 of the Act are made in proceedings for the revision of the field book and the current annual register. They are made after field to field portal and after the current entries have been tested and verified. Notices are sent Under Section 9 when mistakes and disputes Under Section 8 of the Act are discovered in the current annual register calling upon persons affected to file objections. The objections to be filed Under Section 9 must show that the entries made Under Section 8 are incorrect. In other words, the entries made Under Section 8 of the Act are presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. If entries made Under Section 8 are sufficient to raise a presumption of correctness no other meaning can be given to them except that they are to be treated as evidence in a case for correction of records Under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the views taken by the Joint Director and the Settlement Officer and the Consolidation Officer were patently erroneous.