- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that in the absence of any proof of the orders passed by the Judicial Officer dated 8.6.1961 or the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in relation to the alleged partition dated 24.1.1961, the findings arrived at in relation to the partition of the holdings between the predecessors in interest of the petitioner and the contesting respondents is erroneous. Learned counsel submits that the Consolidation Officer has found the entries of the said order to be doubtful and contradictory which finding has not been successfully reversed either by the Settlement Officer Consolidation or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and as such the impugned orders are vitiated. The second submission is that even assuming for the sake of arguments that a partition had taken place then it ought to have been to the extent of half share each whereas the area which has been shown in the share of the respondents is almost 2/3rd. He therefore contends that on merits, as well as on the basis of the facts on record, the impugned orders are unsustainable. I have perused the order passed by the Consolidation Officer who in the order dated 1.4.2009 has concluded that the nature of the endorsement made in the relevant revenue records appear to be contradictory and therefore they are doubtful. He has further recorded that such endorsement could not have been made in accordance with the rules applicable and as such the doubt is further established indicating that no such partition had taken place.
(3.) THE aforesaid finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer has been reversed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation holding that if the file has been weeded out the same cannot be a basis to create a presumption of doubt in respect of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer or the order of the Judicial Officer. THE Settlement Officer Consolidation has concluded that the order dated 24th January, 1961 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer does not appear to have been challenged before any authority and the entries in favour of the respondents have continued for the past more than three decades. No evidence appears to have been led to establish the entries of the orders of the Judicial Officer or the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 24.1.1961 is on the basis of non-existent proceedings. THE petitioner could have obtained extracts of the registers from the record room to establish that no such proceedings were entered into the "Goswara" or register maintained for the said purpose. Where records are weeded out, the entries are maintained in separate registers. THE petitioner failed to make any such attempt and therefore the presumption in favour of the entries, that are long standing, could not be dislodged on a mere doubt or suspicion as neither doubt nor suspicion can take the place of proof. THE Consolidation Officer therefore fell into an error on that score as such the orders impugned cannot be faulted with. Apart from this the Settlement Officer Consolidation has further noted that the petitioner even after the commencement of the consolidation operations and notification did not file objections for 18 years and a heavily time barred objection came to be filed claiming co-tenancy rights in respect of the Khata in question. This also has been taken to be an adverse circumstance against the petitioner by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who has reversed the order of the Consolidation Officer.;