SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. - (1.) CASE is called out. None appears for the opposite parties despite notices deemed sufficient. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.1970, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the order dated 15.3.1971, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad as also the order dated 6th of August, 1982, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The dispute relates to Gata No.2745. The petitioner claims sole right over the Gata in question on the basis of the sale deed executed by one Shri Jagdish Pratap Sahi as well as on the basis of a gift deed executed by one Shri Aacharji Upadhyay in favour of petitioner's grand father, whereas only on the basis of entry entered in the revenue record in 1345 fasali made in the name of Ram Harakh alongwith Raja Jagdish Pratap Sahi, the respondents have been declared co-tenure holders of the land in dispute. It is stated that there is no basis for recording the name of Ram Harakh, whereas upon perusal of the record, I find that the pedigree submitted by the petitioner, indicates that the parties belong to the same family. There is a statement of Mahavir, petitioner's father who admitted that his father was old in age and was head of the family. In the village Ram Nagar Kara there is a land held by all the parties in the joint name. The petitioner also held therein a grove, in which the name of Dal Singar was added. He also admitted his age as 75 years in 1970 and stated that the tress were planted much before his death. The village Pradhan also recorded his statement and submitted that it was an old grove and it has been in the possession of all the parties. There is also a finding of all the courts below that the gift deed as well as the sale deed does not indicate the description of the property, which can identify the land in dispute as the same land.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also cited the judgments in support of his contentions that entry in the revenue record does not confer any title over the tenure holder unless it is supported with any material. He cited a judgment rendered in the case of Suraj Bhan and others versus Financial Commissioner and others, reported in 2007 (6) SCC 186, in which the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that it is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a persons whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.;