RAM AUTAR Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Ram Autar and Bipat (Ram Autar has since been substituted by his legal heir Bhaggu) filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari modifying the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 so far as it relates to recording of the name of respondent no. 4, Kaloo, in class IX.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition are that on plot no. 167/3 situate in village Singahi, Pargana and Tahsil Patti, district Pratapgarh the names of Ram Autar and Bipat were recorded as tenure holders in the basic year. Respondent no 4 filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming that the plot in dispute was abadi and may be recorded as such expunging the names of the petitioners. The petitioners contested. The Consolidation Officer held the plot in dispute to be abadi. Aggrieved the petitioners went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who dismissed the appeal whereafter the petitioners filed a revision application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for redetermination of the issue after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. When the matter came up before the Consolidation Officer after remand respondent no. 4 preferred another objection before him claiming to be Sirdar of the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 19-9-1972 (annexure 1) upheld that objection of the respondent no. 4 and declared him to be a Sirdar of the land in dispute. On appeal the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation partly allowed the petitioners' appeal and in as far as the order of the Consolidation Officer (annexure 1) was concerned he set aside the finding to the effect that the respondent no. 4 was Sirdar and was to be entered as such in the revenue records. He, however, upheld entry of respondent no. 4 in class IX holding him to be in possession of the land in dispute. This order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25-10-1972 has been placed on record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (annexure 2) the petitioners as also respondent no. 4 preferred two revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 18-1-1973 (annexure 3) dismissed both the revisions and affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation contained in annexure 2.

(3.) THE second submission of the learned counsel is to the effect that only under Section 9-A of the Act title was to be decided and no entry on the basis of possession could at all be maintained in class IX under these provisions unless the respondent no. 4 succeeded in establishing his right and title over the land in dispute. THE learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Lakhan v. THE Director of Consolidation U. P. Ballia, 1970 AWR 592, in which this Court held :