RAM LAL Vs. HARI KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. This writ peti tion, under Article 226 of the Constitu tion, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 4-3-1976 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts for the purpose of the writ petition are that, the plot in ques tion was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Har Kishan and others as Sirdar and the names of the petitioners were recorded in Clause 9. THE petitioners filed objection claiming sirdari right on the basis of their continuous pos session over the plot in dispute. THE claim of the petitioners was denied by the respondents by filing reply under Section9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was stated that the petitioners were never in possession and the entry made is also incorrect and be expugned.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the par ties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners have taken objection that they have matured their right as sirdar on account of continuous possession for more than 12 years, there fore, the entry in Clause 9 was against the law and they should have been recorded as sirdar. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in the documents) which were filed by the petitioners their names were recorded as sirdar but the aforesaid documents were not properly read by the Dy. Director of Consolidation rather -the has misinter preted the same, as such, the finding recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolidation is contriary to the facts available on the record and also against the law. It is stated that Hari Kishan appeared as witness and he has admitted that the petitioners were recorded in shikmi column.