NAZIR AHMAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 679 (area 12 biswa and 13 dhur) included in Khata No. 45 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed khata').

(3.) It is an admitted case of the parties that in the previous consolidation proceedings an order dated 15.6.1958 was passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 8(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), as it then stood, holding the petitioners to be the Bhumidhars of the disputed plot and the predecessor of respondent No. 3 was recorded in Class 9. It is also apparent from the records that respondent No. 3 or his predecessor were not recorded in possession of the disputed plot in the revenue records relating to 1373 Fasli, 1375 Fasli, 1380 Fasli and 1383 Fasli. During the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises, the respondent No. 3 filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 registering Case No. 1183 before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') claiming to have acquired his Bhumidhari rights over the disputed plot by adverse possession. The C.O. vide his order dated 19.9.1979 rejected the objections filed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the order dated 15.6.1958 was not binding in title proceedings as the same was passed under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1953, as it previously stood. In his aforesaid order, the C.O. also held that the possession of respondent No. 3 over the disputed plot before 1361 Fasli was not proved and respondent No. 3 was not recorded in possession in the Khasra of 1373 Fasli, 1375 Fasli, 1380 Fasli and 1383 Fasli. Consequently the C.O. held that respondent No. 3 had not proved continuous and uninterrupted possession over the disputed plots so as to acquire Bhumdhari rights by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.1979 passed by the C.O., the respondent No. 3 filed Appeal No. 332 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), which was allowed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 23.1.1980. The order dated 23.1.1980 passed by the S.O.C. in Appeal No. 332 was challenged by the petitioners under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') in Revision No. 5986. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 6.4.1981 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. The orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981 passed by the S.O.C. and D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.