SIYA RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER, KANPUR DIVISION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, who has appeared for the contesting private re-spondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) It appears and as is disclosed on the record, consolidation proceedings commenced in the area and ultimately resulted in a final notification under Sec. 52 being promulgated on 10 No-vember, 1973. In the course of the con-solidation proceedings, CH Form 45 was drawn in which the name of the vendor of the petitioner is shown against Plot No. 464 while that of Smt. Vimla Devi (mother of the private respondents) was shown against Plot No. 465. Vimla Devi, thereafter is stated to have moved an application seeking the relocation of that plot and for the boundaries thereof being redrawn. This application was disposed of on 20/4/1968. The amendments which were thereafter required to be made were also duly noted by the Consolidation Authorities. These docu-ments have been brought on the record by way of a Supplementary Affidavit dtd. 13/4/2005.

(3.) Admittedly the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records on 26/3/2000. Suffice it to note that no proceedings in respect of the recording of name as made in terms of that order were ever drawn by the respondents No. 4 and 5. They, how-ever, chose to institute what is described to be an application under Sec. 27(3) of the 1953 Act asserting that the boundaries of Plot No. 465 had not been correctly depicted on the map. It is in these proceedings that the impugned orders have come to be passed.