Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.06.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad. Undisputedly, predecessor of the petitioner Neemar was recorded tenure -holder of the land in dispute No. 3984/8/2 area 2 -14 -0 and plot No. 3984/8/4/1 area 3 -6 -0, both relating to Khata No. 183 and in Plot No. 3984/8/4/2 area 2 -15 -0 relating to Khata No. 325 which is entered as Navin Parti in the revenue record. There is no dispute between the parties regarding Khata No. 183. This dispute relates to Khata No. 325 which is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as Navin Parti in the Khatauni of the basic year of consolidation scheme. Father of the petitioner Neemar claimed his possession and title on the land of Khata No. 325 before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9 of the Act by filing objection saying that area of his Khata is 8 -12 -0 Hectare. Wrongly area of 2 -15 -0 shown as Navin Parti, he prayed for cancellation of this entry of Navin Parti. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 06.03.1982, partly accepted his request and the ordered to record his possession on this land. Aggrieved by this order, he filed an Appeal before the S.O.C. (Settlement Officer Consolidation), who vide his order dated 18.08.1982 allowed his Appeal and on the basis of registered Lease -deed in his favour ordered to record his name on the land of Khata No. 325 showing him Bhumdhar of the same on the area of 2 -8 -0. On the rest area of 0 -7 -0 ordered for recording Navin Parti of Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 2 Anand Prakash has filed Revision before the D.D.C. (Deputy Deputy Director of Consolidation). On 02.12.1986. As the Revision was time barred so he moved an application with affidavit to condone the delay. He challenged the orders of the courts below saying that on the basis of forged deed and entries in the record name of Neemar was record by the courts below. On the other hand, on behalf of Neemar it was argued that Anand Prakash has no concern with the property in dispute. He has no locus standi to file the Revision. Moreover, there is inordinate delay in filing the Revision, it is not explained and rightly the S.O.C. after considering the evidence on record ordered for recording his name on the land of Plot No. 325 area 2 -8 -0. Anand Prkash Pandey claimed himself member of the village and it was said on his behalf that as the land of Khata No. 325 was of Navin Parti and of public utility owned by the Gaon Sabha of the village so he is entitled to file the Revision. It is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner that this Anand Prakash Pandey lives in the village and in Partal statement land of Khata No. 325 2 -15 -0 is shown Navin Parti land of the Gaon Sabha. Moreover, it was further argued on behalf of the respondent that for the sake of arguments, if it is taken correct that there is no personal interest of the respondent No. 2 in the matter and land of Khata No. 325 not shown in his personal name, even then, by petition of Revision if he brought these facts in the knowledge of D.D.C., if the D.D.C. has passed the order taking notice of the matter suo - motu and passed the impugned order under his super visionary control under Section 48 of the Act and Gaon Sabha to whom the property relates, is not opposing the Revision filed by him, there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was a case of loss to the residents of the village and among them one was the respondent No. 2. Further as regards, the delay in filing the Revision matter in dispute was of the land of public utility. If it is taken correct that on suo -motu action in general power of supervision on the orders passed by the subordinate courts, there is no limitation in exercising such powers. On both these points, learned D.D.C. has also given finding and held that respondent No. 2 brought facts to his knowledge challenging the correctness of the order passed by both the courts below and delay if in filing the Revision the same is to be condoned. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments raised by both the parties, I am of the view that there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the order passed by the learned D.D.C. for entertaining revision and condoning the delay in the matter. If he has condoned the delay in filing the Revision also passed order on merit. There is no illegality, invalidity and also impropriety in the order seeing the fact that matter relates to the land of public utility.
(3.) NEEMAR , Father of the petitioner had claimed his right on the basis of a Lease -deed executed by one Awadhesh Pratap Singh in his favour of the land of Plot No. 3984 area 2 -8 -0 registered on 29.05.1951 and executed on 27th September, 1951. Copy of this deed is also available on the writ file. This was not an legible copy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to file certified copy and typed copy of this deed but for the reason best known to him, he has not filed the same. From the record, it reveals that neither Neemar had examined himself nor marginal witness of the deed were examined on his behalf to prove the legality and validity of this deed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred the amended provisions in U.P. of Section 90 of the Evidence Act and argued that this deed was more than 20 years old when produced in the court and it was admissible in evidence. Learned Counsel for the respondent had drawn my attention on the proviso of Section 90 of the Evidence Act and argued as this document was basis of the claim of Father of the petitioner so under the provisions of Law it requires proof. I am also of the view that for the purpose of seeing this document in Evidence it requires proof as it was the basis of the case of the father of the petitioner. Further from perusal of the record, it reveals that there was no plot of the area 2 -8 -0 and the area of the Plot No. 3980 was 2 -15 - 0. Not the case of the petitioner that part of land of plot was retained by him. Awdhesh Pratap for his own use or it was in use of the Gaon Sabha. Something unnatural that only 2 -8 -0 land will be leased out. If this Awdhesh Pratap Singh was having right to execute the Patta, what remains for the land of 7 Biswa of this plot , it is not clear from the record.;