AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Maurya at length.
(2.) THE contention raised is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a manifest illegality by relying on the long standing entries in favour of the contesting respondent after the abolition of Zamindari to record that he was the recorded tenure holder. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that these long standing entries was based on incorrect entries and the entries in favour of predecessor in interest of the petitioner of 1333 fasli and 1320 fasli has wrongly been ignored. Sri Maurya relies on a decision in the case of Achhaibar and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others reported in 2006 (100) RD 205 to substantiate his submissions. I have perused the orders of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have gone to hold that the respondent has not been able to prove as to how he acquired the rights in the land after it was entered as "Bag Malikan" (Proprietors Grove). The authorities, therefore, solely relying on this aspect proceeded to hold that Gajendra Singh has failed to establish his title over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer had recorded that the name of Gajendra Singh has been incorrectly continued and the same was directed to be expunged with a direction that the name of the petitioners be entered as Bhumidhars of the land in view of the entries in their favour. Sri Maurya contends that the view taken by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are supported in fact and in law. The petitioners had become Bhumidhars in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. He, therefore, contends that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error by reversing the same and recording contrary findings.;