Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Under challenge is an order passed by Deputy Direction of Consolidation, Faizabad(Ambedkar Nagar) on 23.5.07, by which the Gaon Sabha's revision preferred in the year 2001 has been allowed. The main dispute before the Consolidation Court was regarding status of plot nos. 312 and 372. According to learned counsel for the petitioner Gata no.316 was his own land. According to him it was his ancestral grove. A reference has been made in the proceedings of Gata nos. 312 and 372. During consolidation proceedings a dispute was raised before the Consolidation Officer, who had rendered a judgment on 7.6.82, indicating in the judgment that the above said Gatas were public land vested in Gaon Sabha as Banjar Land and pond etc. An appeal was preferred against this order, which was before Settlement Officer of Consolidation was decided on 31.1.87.
(3.) When the Gaon Sabha discovered that the land in dispute was public land i.e. Gaon Sabha's land, it preferred a revision. The revision remained pending since 2001, ultimately the matter has been adjudicated and the Revisional Court had looked into the factual and legal aspect of the matter. The Revisional Court has found that Gata nos. 312 and 316 were public lands i.e. Banjar vested in Gaon Sabha, Gata no.372 was a pond. It was categorical finding of facts based on records recording that Gata No.372 has always remained a pond. It was also put on auction, auctioning fisheries rights by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1987. The Court had relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari's case that encroachment be removed from ponds and public lands. In the present case, it was found on the basis of consolidation and legal entries that the land in dispute were recorded as Banjar lands and ponds. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is empowered under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to deal with all the aspects, factual and legal, and conclude the controversy. All these are questions of facts, which have already been dealt with discussed and adjudicated upon by the appropriate consolidation Courts.;