GRAM SABHA KAUNNAI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the supplementary affidavit filed today.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the Gaon Sabha questioning the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.12.2008 whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondent No. 4, who has transferred the land to respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 represented by Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha Advocate, has been allowed on the ground, that there was no occasion for the Settlement Officer Consolidation to have restored the appeal and to have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. However, a perusal of the revisional order also indicates that in view of the powers conferred upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, he has also entered into the merits of the main contention namely the dispute between the parties relating to the adoption of the respondent No. 4 Shyam by the original tenure holder late Yadi Ram.

(3.) A categorical finding has been recorded by the Consolidation Officer that no evidence was led to disprove the adoption as claimed by the respondent No. 4 for which full opportunity was afforded. This finding of the Consolidation Officer was again put to test before the revisional authority and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the facts on record arrived at the same conclusion which is to the effect that the adoption had already been proved.