DHIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the case may be adjourned for the day to enable him to file a rejoinder affidavit but as the case has been listed peremptorily today in pursuance to the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by this Court, therefore, the prayer for adjournment is rejected. Apart from the aforesaid, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents appears to be formal in nature and, therefore, rejoinder affidavit is not necessary to decide the writ petition on merits.

(2.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.

(3.) By order dated 23.9.1981 passed in Case Nos. 919-925 registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), the Consolidation Officer determined the share of the contesting parties in the said case in Khata Nos. 140, 140A, 140B, 41, 42, 52 and Plot No. 1147 of Khata No. 181. The father of respondent nos. 4 to 7, Ram Chandra, the father of the petitioner as well as one Samrathi Devi were parties in the case. The said fact would be evident from the order dated 23.9.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer which has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 15.11.2018. Apart from the petitioner, Jai Hind, Savinder, Kamal and Rajesh are also the sons of Ram Chandra and Mst. Baghirathi is the widow of Ram Chandra. The aforesaid persons are also the heirs of Ram Chandra. It appears that as a consequence of the order dated 23.9.1981, Reference Case No. 511 under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 was submitted before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide his order dated 18.8.1982 arranged the chaks according to the share of the parties and consequential entries were made in C.H. Form - 23 of the parties. The petitioner filed an application dated 13.7.2016 praying for recall of the order dated 18.8.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation alleging that the entries in C.H. Form - 23 referring to the order dated 18.8.1982 were forged and no such order was ever passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was alleged by the petitioner that he got knowledge of the order dated 18.8.1982 and the consequential entries in C.H. Form - 23 during the measurement of chaks at the instance of the vendees of Samrathi Devi and there is no reference to the order dated 18.8.1982 or Reference Case No. 511 in the record room of the consolidation department. The application dated 13.7.2016 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 27.12.2017 on the ground of delay and also after recording a finding that the order dated 18.8.1982 had been passed as other heirs of Ram Chandra, i.e., the father of the petitioner were satisfied with the entries in C.H. Form - 23 and had not filed any objections to it, therefore, the said entries appeared to be genuine. The order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged in the present writ petition.