Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the Judgment and order dated 25.2.1978 passed by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
(2.) Brief facts as stated in the writ petition for the purpose of the present case are that plot Nos. 338, 339. 349 and 351 were recorded in the basic year khataunl in the name of respondent No. 4, Goswami Raghunath Lalji Maharaj and the name of the petitioner was recorded in class 9. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and claimed that he be declared sirdar on the basis of the adverse possession. The case of the petitioner was contested by the opposite party on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession, therefore, the entry of class 9 may be rejected. it is stated that the petitioner in order to prove his possession he has filed various revenue receipt of the years 1962, 1963, 1965. 1968, 1973 and 1975 etc. and produced the witnesses, namely, himself and Bhola Singh. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the petitioner and directed that the name of the petitioner should be expunged, Being aggrieved against the judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation who allowed the appeal of the petitioner and declared the petitioner to be sirdar over the plots in dispute. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision setting aside the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the Depuly Director of Consolidation.
(3.) Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner urged his first point that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no right to set aside the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in favour of the petitioner while exercising powers under Section 48 of the U.P Consolidation of Land Holdings Act. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that the findings of fact should be set aside, then he should have remanded the case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for consideration of the evidence afresh and should not have re-appraised the evidence in exercise of the re visional Jurisdiction. Third point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the petitioner had taken plea of adverse possession and had produced oral as well as documentary evidence, then should not have Ignored the same.;