B.L.Yadav - (1.) BY the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 15-7-85, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda, under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') is sought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
(2.) THE factual position is that in the basic year petitioner was entered over the plots in dispute and is in possession for the last 20 years. After the extracts from the records were issued as provided under section 9 (1) of the Act, respondent No. 2, the main tenant filed an objection under section 9 (2) of the Act within 21 days before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer disputing the correctness of the entries in favour of the petitioner and alleging that the entries of the petitioner were fictitious and forged and were prepared against the provisions of law and in fact respondent No. 2 was a Sirdar and now Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and in the remarks column the entries of the name of the petitioner were not made in accordance with law nor he has any knowledge about the entries being made in favour of the petitioner as Sirdar, and that the name of the petitioner may be expunged from the revenue record and that of respondent No. 2 may be entered as Sirdar/Bhumidhar. The petitioner on the other hand filed an objection that the entries in the remark column made in their favour are correct and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was in continuous possession for more than the prescribed period and no suit for ejectment was filed under section 209 (Two hundred and Nine) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and he has right under section 210 of the Act and the objection of respondent No. 2 deserves to be dismissed and the basic year entries in the name of petitioner may be maintained. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 14-7-79 (Annexure-1) rejected the claim of the petitioner but his appeal under section 11 (2) of the Act was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 9-10-79 (Annexure-11) and the revision of the respondent No 2, under section 48 of the Act was allowed by the impugned order and the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside. Against this order dated 15-7-85 the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that the entries in the revenue papers were prepared in the name of the petitioner in accordance with law, particularly in accordance with the procedure provided under paragraphs A-80, A-81 and 423 (5) of the U. P. Land Records Manual and that oral evidence led by the petitioner was not considered hence the impugned order cannot be sustained as there was manifest error apparent on the face of the record. Reliance was placed on Mahabir v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1974 Unreported Revenue Cases 674; Paras Nath v. Wajiul Hasan, Unreported Revenue Cases 615 (DB); Nanha v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur, 1975 AWC 1 and Bramhanand Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, 1986 AWC 306 (DB). Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on the other hand urged that it has been held under the impugned order that the remark column entries, in favour of the petitioner, the claimants of right under section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not made after following the procedure prescribed and the triplicate P. A. 10 notices as required by the provisions of Para A-80 and A-81 and Para 423 (5) of the U. P. Land Records Manual (as they stood on the relevant date), were not served on the main tenant, the respondent no. 2, before passing the order dated 4-3-62 directing the entries in Varg 9 to be made in favour of the petitioner. In view of the procedure under Paras A-80 and A-81 read with para 423 (5) it is obvious that the Supervisor Kanungo shall proceed to make entries in class 9 of the triennial Khatauni and sign and date the same. The Lekhpal shall prepare extracts of the entries to the Khatauni made by the Supervisor Kanungo and deliver them to the recorded tenure holder or tenure-holders, Chairman and the Land Management Committee and also to the person or persons ordered to be recorded in class 9 of the Khatauni. This procedure was not followed hence the entries in Varg 9 in favour of the petitioner has no evidentiary value or could be said that those entries exist in favour of the petitioner and such entries, if any, having been prepared against the provisions of law would not confer any right on the petitioner or they can extinguish the right of respondent No. 2.;