AYODHYA PRASAD Vs. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 22.4.1985 and 28.5.1984 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, respectively.

(2.) The brief fact, as stated in the present writ petition are that plot No. 281 situated in village Sungaha Badii, Pargana Amaurha, Tehsil Haraiya, district Bastt is a big plot out of which plot No. 281/1 measuring 10 biswas was recorded in the name of Daya Ram and Kanhaiya who have deposited 20 times land revenue and have acquired bhumidhari right and subsequently sold it to the petitioner on 11.9.1975 through a registered sale deed. It-is stated that in the aforesaid sale deed, Ram Asrey, who had filed complaint, was a marginal witness. It is stated that petitioner's name was recorded on the basis of the sale deed and he continues in possession. It is stated that in the year. 1977, the petitioner constructed his house over plot in question and is in occupation of the same and he has no other place of residence. The plot in question became abadi and the petitioner has his house, sehan, Ghari and Charan.'etc. The petitioner has further stated that due to election rivalry. Ram Asrey filed objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 21.3.1983 and the name of the petitioner continued in revenue record. Respondent No. 3, Gaon Sabha, filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Basti, on 28.5.1984. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed revision, which was rejected on 22.4.1985. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two orders by means of the present writ petition.

(3.) The grounds of attack of the petitioner against the two Judgments are that the petitioner has purchased the plot in dispute from its owner and it was recorded in the basic year khatauni as bhumidhari of the petitioner, his name should not have been expunged on the basis that the petitioner has not filed any extract or khatauni. His further contention is that the petitioner had filed before the Consolidation Officer register of malkan of 1383 fasli in which Daya Ram and Kanhaiya Lal transferors of the petitioner were recorded. Therefore, the observation made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Dy. Director of Consolidation that no Khatauni was filed is not correct and that the register malkan was sufficient to prove all these facts that the property was purchased by the petitioner from the original owner. The third ground of challenge of the order passed by the consolidation authorities is that the property in dispute was abadi on the spot. Therefore, the consolidation authorities have no power to decide the title in respect of the abadi as the property in dispute was not land when consolidation operation started. He has further submitted that the finding of the Dy. Director of Consolidation that there was no mention of abadi is also not correct.