R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.11.1979 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order dated 12.5.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) The dispute relates to the plot No. 916/2/1-43 (measuring 2.85 acres) of village Kotra, districts Jhansi hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute. In the basic year, the name of Dhani Ram respondent No. 3 (since deceased) was recorded in the revenue papers. Lok Nath son of Banshi Dhar, father of the petitioners filed an objection under section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') claiming that he was in possession over the land in dispute since before the abolition of Zamindari. The entries in the revenue papers were wrong, he, therefore, prayed that the name of Dhani Ram be expunged from the revenue papers and his name be entered in the revenue papers. At the time of partal, Lok Nath was reported to be in possession and entry of Clause IX in his name was found in the revenue papers. The respondent No. 3 Dhani Ram filed objection/written statement contending that the entry of Clause-IX in the name of Lok Nath was illegal. He was never in possession of the land in dispute. It was, therefore, contended that basic year entry be maintained. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after perusing the material on the record, came to the conclusion that Lok Nath was in possession of the land in dispute. His name was also recorded in Clause-IX. He, therefore, perfected Sirdari and Bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute. Having recorded the said findings, the objection filed by Lok Nath was allowed by tire Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 8.4.1979. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Dhani Ram filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation perused the revenue entries, which form part of the record and ultimately held that entry of Clause-IX was illegal as the same was made contrary to the provisions of the Land Records Manual. After perusing, the case law, which was cited before him he came to the conclusion that on the basis of illegal entries nobody can acquire any right in the land. He, therefore, rejected the claim of Lok Nath and allowed the appeal filed by Dhani Ram by his judgment and order dated 30.11.1979. Challenging the validity of the said order, Lok Nath filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also affirmed the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and dismissed the revisions by his judgment and order dated 12.5.1981. Hence, the present petition.;