Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Mr.Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Adil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.8 as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 24th of May, 1984, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Utraula, Gonda, whereby the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 17th of December, 1981 has been set aside and a direction has been issued to record the name of Nibar, son of Ganga in the basic year Khatauni as also the order dated 23rd of December, 2009, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich camp Balrampur, whereby the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation has been upheld.
(3.) The petitioner is claiming title over the land of Khata No.24, situate in village Hasanpur, Pargana Sadulla Nagar, Tehsil Utraula, district Balrampur, claiming the same as ancestral property. It is stated that the name of Nibar son of Ganga was recorded in the basic year in the said Khata fraudulently in connivance of the Lekhpal, whereas the name of his ancestors, namely, Mathura was recorded in 1308 Fasali and from 1346 to 1357 Fasali, the name of Ram Preet, who has been his uncle, was recorded. He was also recorded in 1349 Fasali with the duration of 10 years. On the other hand the opposite parties contested the objection raised by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer on the ground that in 1357 Fasali the name of Nibar son of Ganga was recorded, which continued in 1359 Fasali with the duration of 9 years and so on till date and for 30 years nobody came forward to raise any objection against these entries. It is the petitioner's father namely Mr. Chottey who raised objection before the Consolidation Officer in 1977, not prior to that. The opposite parties claimed their right as conferred under the decree of compromise entered into between the Jamindar and Nibar in the suit of ejectment under Section 214 of U.P. Tenancy Act, but the petitioner negated the same on the ground that the petitioner's predecessors were not arrayed as party in the said suit, therefore, the terms of compromise are not binding upon him. The petitioner also claimed that the identity of holdings from 1308 Fasali to 1347 Fasali was not changed, therefore, after the death of his predecessor (tenant) being his successor he attained the statutory right of tenancy. Accordingly he submitted that the entry in the name of Nibar in the revenue record is fictitious and does not confer any right upon the opposite parties.;