SHEO MANGAL LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the basic year the names of the Petitioners were recorded in revenue records over the land in dispute. Respondent No. 4 filed an objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The objection of Respondent No. 4 was contested by the Petitioners. The consolidation officer held that the entries of possession made in favour of the Respondent were not in accordance with the prescribed rules. He further held that the Respondent was not in adverse possession and as such did not acquire sirdari rights. Giving the aforesaid findings the consolidation officer rejected the objection of the Respondent. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation affirming the order of the consolidation officer. Respondent No. 4 thereupon filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that some of the plots were found to be entered in the name of the ancestors of the Respondent in 1306 F. and 1334 F. He further held that the entries of possession made in favour of the Respondent were in accordance with the prescribed rules of U.P. Land Records Manual, hence he allowed the revision of Respondent No. 4 by his order dated 11 -10 -1971 holding him to be sirdar of the land in dispute. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erroneously held the entries of possession in favour of Respondent No. 4 in accordance with the prescribed rules. He urged that the entries were made in contravention to paragraph A -80 and paragraph A -81 of U.P. Land Records Manual. According to the learned Counsel, requirement under the aforesaid provisions is that when an entry of possession is made in favour of any person, it is necessary to issue a copy of such entry to the tenure holder whose name is entered in the main column and to obtain signatures of the tenant on the copy of the list retained by supervisor Kanungo. He has further urged that neither a copy of the entry was given to the Petitioners nor their signatures were obtained, hence the entry was wholly fictitious and in contravention to the aforesaid rules. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also urged that copy of the entry was also not issued to the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha as required under the aforesaid provision of rules hence also the entries were wholly fictitious and could not be taken into consideration. As the entries were in contravention of law hence the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation based on those entries are wholly erroneous and there is a manifest error of law in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) PARAGRAPH A -80 requires the entry to be made at the time of partal. Para A -81 requires the mode and the procedure to be followed at the time of making entry. The aforesaid provisions clearly show that in case Lekhpal finds possession of any other person than the tenure -holder or a person recorded in the main column, it is necessary for him to issue a copy of the entry to the tenant -in -chief or the persons recorded in the main column and to obtain his signatures. It is further necessary that a copy of that entry should be communicated to Pradhan of Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat and signature of receipt of the copy should also be obtained. Para A -81 on the other hand, further makes it obligatory on the part of the Supervisor Kanungo to ensure that the extracts have been issued in all the cases and the signatures of the recipients obtained and if he finds that an extract has not been issued in any case he shall get it issued in his presence. The purpose of such issuing of extracts and obtaining the signatures is that the tenure -holder or the person recorded in the main column may acquire knowledge about such entry and if he so likes may take proper action before the appropriate authority for correction of such entry. In the present case the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded a specific finding that the copies of the extracts were not issued to the Petitioners nor their signatures were obtained. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the matter from this aspect held that as the date and diary number was mentioned in respect of Partal as such the entries were in accordance with the rules. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while giving his findings ignored mandatory requirements of issue of extracts and obtaining signatures of the persons entered in the main column. In my view the requirement of paragraphs A -80 and A -81 was mandatory and so long as the requirement was not strictly followed, it cannot be said that the entries made were in accordance with the rules. Once it is established that the entries are not in accordance with the rules, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not right in relying upon those entries while construing possession of the Respondent. The Deputy Director of Consolidation could summon and examine the original record himself if he wanted to place reliance or could direct the parties to adduce evidence in order to establish the compliance of provisions of law. Unless there was material before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to prove the compliance it was not open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hold the entries in accordance with prescribed rules. In the absence of any such finding the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not right in relying upon those entries.