GORAKH NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the orders passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

(2.) The brief facts for the purpose of present writ petition are that during consolidation proceedings dispute arose in respect of plot No. 548 area 77 acres. It is stated by the petitioner that his father Ram Baran was Khudkasht holder of the plot in dispute. He mortgaged it to Flrangl father of Balbhadra and Bharat on 25.5.1912 and put him in possession. The mortgage was redeemed on 26.4.1946 and possession over the plot in dispute was delivered to the petitioner by Balbhadra and Bharat. The petitioner after the zamindari abolition became the bhumidhar as he was Khudkasht holder prior to the enforcement of the zamindari abolition. It is further stated that till 1366 fasli. the plot in dispute was recorded as property of the gaon sabha, respondent No. 4 in revenue record without any notice to the petitioner and incorrect entries continued till the consolidation operation started in the village. In the basic year khatauni, the plot in dispute was recorded in the name of Balbhadra and Bharat, who were the original mortgages in class 4.

(3.) Two sets of objections were filed under Section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act disputing the correctness of the entries made in the basic year record. The petitioner filed objection claiming bhumidhari right in the land in dispute on the ground that his father was the Khudkasht holder of the plot in dispute, he mortgaged it to the father of Balbhadra and Bharat Firangi on 25.5.1912 ; the petitioner redeemed the mortgage in question on 26.4.1946 therefore, the names of Balbhadra and Bharat are wrongly entered in the revenue record. It was also stated that the gaon sabha has no concern with this land.