HARBHAJAN KAUR W/O JOGENDRA SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION/ADDL COLLECTOR (FINANCE AND REVENUE), NAINITAL AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-209
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 29,2013

Harbhajan Kaur W/O Jogendra Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director Of Consolidation/Addl Collector (Finance And Revenue), Nainital And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 30- 12-1994 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Nainital (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) and judgment and order dated 21.5.1994, passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Nainital, (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition).
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition, according to the petitioners, are they were found in physical and cultivatory possession of the land in dispute, at the time of Partal of consolidation and they are also recorded as such in Varg-4 The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed objection U/S 9 (A)(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to the effect that their father Teja Singh was recorded in Varg-4and after his death the objectors wrongly got their names recorded whereas after the death of their father, they are in possession and as such names of objectors be expunged and their names be recorded as heir and successor of their father. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 vide order dated 2.2.1994. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred the appeal U/S 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned Settlement Officer Consolidation set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 2.2.1994 and ordered to record the names of Jageer Singh Karnail Singh on the disputed Khata in class-4, as it as recorded prior to 1378 Fasli. Further aggrieved by the order the petitioners preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The learned D.D.C. also dismissed the revision on the ground that the Supervisor Qanoongo has no jurisdiction to correct the entry of Varg-4, therefore, this writ petition.
(3.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by filing the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the entry showing the names of petitioner in basic year Khautani are incorrect. The respondents have been continuing in actual physical possession of the land in dispute since before the commencement of consolidation operation. The respondents 5 and 6 had filed objection U/S 9(A)(2) of the Act and challenged the basic year entry purported in favour of the petitioners besides contending that the contesting respondents have been continuing in actual physical possession of the land in question. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after Zamindari Abolition in the area which had taken place in the year 1969 and application of provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, the name of petitioners' father accordingly was recorded in the khautani in the Varg-4. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has not committed any error in allowing the appeal preferred by the contesting respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.