- (1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation, contained in Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 respectively to the petition.
(2.) The facts, in short, giving rise to the present petition are that the dispute was in respect of plot Nos. 299, 300 and 302 between the Petitioners and the private Respondents. The said plots were recorded in the names of Petitioners as well as Ram Lotan, Ram Komal, Nankoo, sons of Gur Charan in the basic year. Against this entry Ram Lotan, Ram Komal and Nankoo filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') praying therein that name of the Petitioners may be expunged from all the three plots as the entry in their names was fictitious. It was also claimed by them that grove was planted on these plots by their ancestors. The claim was contested by the Petitioners claiming therein to be co-sharers along with opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and the father of opposite parties No. 5 and 6. It was also alleged that the grove was very old and the trees planted by their ancestors were existing and they were coming in possession over half share since long. The necessary evidence was led before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that the grove being entered and owned by both the parties and continued the entry as such, therefore, he maintained the basic year entry and the objection filed by the opposite parties No. 3 to 6 has been rejected. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the opposite parties No. 3 to 6 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 6.2.1979. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the Petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has misdirected himself in not appreciating the evidence on record and more particularly the entry made in favour of the Petitioners, which indicated the right perfected in their favour on the basis of certain proceedings, which were drawn in the nature of survey proceedings. It has also been submitted that during survey if any dispute is raised, then the same is decided by the revenue authorities considering the claim of the parties.;