BHAG KAUR Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H.N. Singh, Advocate assisted by Sri K.D. Tiwari, the counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and the counsel for respondent no. 4.

(2.) The facts of the case are that in the basic year records, Plot Nos. 182, 186, 187, 188 and 189 (total area 5.32 hects.) were recorded as Navin Parti and in the name of Gaon Sabha. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') praying to be recorded as a Bhumidhar with transferable rights of the disputed plots. On the said objections of the petitioner, Case No. 837 of 1989-90 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Consolidation Officer, Kichha, Camp at Rampur, i.e., respondent no. 3. In her objections, the petitioner claimed that the disputed plots were settled with her by the erstwhile State of Rampur and a document dated 4.6.1949 incorporating the settlement was also executed. The claim of the petitioner was opposed by the State Government and in its reply the State Government pleaded that the alleged document settling the disputed plots in favour of the petitioner and filed by him was a forged document and no such document was executed in her favour. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 23.9.1991 dismissed the objections of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, i.e., respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 22.10.1991. The orders dated 23.9.1991 and 22.10.1991 were passed on the ground that the petitioner could not prove the document dated 4.6.1949 and could also not prove her possession over the suit property. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision No. 70 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, Camp at Rampur, i.e., respondent no. 1 which was also dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 22.2.1992. The orders dated 22.2.1992, 22.10.1991 and 23.9.1991 passed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the settlement deed dated dated 4.6.1949 and the possession of the petitioner over the disputed plots was proved by the witnesses of the petitioner and under Section 16 read with Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1950') as applicable in former State of Rampur, the petitioner became the Sirdaar of the disputed plots and consequently Bhumidhar with transferable rights. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in his order dated 22.2.1992, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent no. 1 has held that the petitioner had proved the settlement deed dated 4.6.1949 and in light of the aforesaid findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the objections of the petitioner deserved to be allowed. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 22.2.1992, 22.10.1991 and 23.9.1991 are contrary to law and liable to be set-aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.