R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 11.4.1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer, 3.2.1976 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and 18.12.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur.
(2.) Dispute relates to plot No. 134 measuring area 2 bighas, 7 biswas and 7 biswansis, for short, the plot in dispute, situated at village Dullahpur, pargana Zamania, district Ghazipur. In the basic year, the name of respondent No. 4 was recorded over the plot in dispute in the revenue papers as sirdar. Petitioners filed an objection claiming that the plot in dispute was their ancestral property. It was the sir land of which the petitioner have become bhumidhar after enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; that the plot in dispute was situated on the other side of the river Ganges. Respondent No. 4, Muneshwar Rai who was distantly related to them was resident of village Revtipur, which was also situated on the other side of the river. The said plot was given to the said respondent by way of private arrangement, i.e., by way of mutual exchange and as a temporary arrangement in lieu of plot Nos. 3382/1 and 3492 of village Sherpur, which belonged to respondent No. 4 in 1362 fasli. Respondent No. 4 wrongly got recorded his name over the plot in dispute under C.L.R.D. scheme in the year 1366/68 fasli. His name was, therefore, liable to be expunged and their objection was liable to be allowed.
(3.) Respondent No. 4, Shri Muneshwar Rai filed a written statement/objection denying the facts stated in the objection filed by the petitioners. It was asserted that he was in possession of the plot in dispute for more than 12 years as sirdar, his name was rightly recorded in the revenue papers in C.L.R.D. scheme. It was also asserted that regarding plot Nos. 3382/1 and 3492/2, no objection was filed by the petitioners in the consolidation proceedings which shows that case set up by them was false. The claim of petitioners was also clearly barred by limitation as no suit was filed within the period prescribed under the law. The objection filed by the petitioners was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.;