NARENDRA SINGH Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11th September, 1972.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties is confined to plot No. 162/1, area 1.74 acres. The Petitioners and their predecessor -in interest were recorded as bhumidhars of the disputed plot.

(3.) THE Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer, as there could be no reconciliation. The Consolidation Officer took into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on the record and came to the conclusion that the entries made in favour of Respondent No. 1 were fictitious and were not in accordance with law and, therefore, no right could be conferred on Respondent No. I on the basis of such entries. Respondent No. 1, feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Consolidation Officer, went up in appeal, but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) confirmed the order and the finding of the Consolidation Officer. He further reiterated that it has not been established that P.A. 10 was issued and the entries were in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1, thereupon went up in revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and allowed the objection of the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners have now come to challenge the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by filing the present petition.