Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.
(2.) Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautam Budh Nagar namely Dr. Abha Gupta as directed by this Court is present before the Court. Ramkesh Katiyar, Consolidation Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar has filed counter affidavit in writ petition stating therein that the order dated 11.3.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation has not been enclosed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition, instead thereof he has filed only a fabricated certified copy of the order sheet dated 11.3.2010 in the writ petition. In order to demonstrate the aforesaid fact the learned standing counsel has also drawn attention of this Court on a restoration application dated 18.3.2010 moved by the petitioner in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, wherein he has also filed a certified copy of the order sheet dated 11.3.2010 contained at page 17 of the counter affidavit. From perusal of which it indicates that there is manipulation in the copy of the order sheet of Revision No.1 Gram Sabha v. Salek Chand decided on 11.3.2010, wherein it has been mentioned that typed copy of order is not attached with the said certified copy of the order sheet, whereas in the restoration application no such note has been appended in the said order. It indicates that by manipulating the certified copy of the order sheet dated 11.3.2010 passed in the said revision the petitioner has filed abovenoted writ petition before this Court. But instead of taking any serious action against the petitioner I have also considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on merits of the order dated 11.3.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautam Budh Nagar, which has been filed by the petitioner along with supplementary affidavit as Annexure SA-1.
(3.) From perusal of the order dated 11.3.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that the land in dispute was recorded as Banjar land in the name of Gaon Sabha. The petitioner could not establish his title before Deputy Director of Consolidation as to how the title of said land has been conferred upon the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has dealt with the orders passed by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation in quite detail and rightly set aside the orders passed by both the authorities below to her. In my opinion also no title could be conferred upon the petitioner on the basis of any claim of adverse possession over the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha even if the notice u/s 122-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act has been dropped against the petitioner in respect of said land. It is not the case of the petitioner that the land has been settled with the petitioner either before Zamindari abolition by Zamindar or Gaon Sabha under the relevant provisions of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, as such the petitioner cannot claim any right or title in respect of the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in my considered opinion, appears to be perfectly justified and cannot be called in question at the instance of the petitioner.;