S.R.Singh - (1.) THE above mentioned writ petitions arise out of a proceeding under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of plot nos. 19/2/1, 61/2, 19/2/2, 19/2/3 areas 0.343, 0.178, O 040, O015 and O 104 acre respectively, which are situate in village Tilakpur, Pargana Gopalpur, Tahsil Sagari, District Azamgarh.
(2.) IN the basic khatauni petitioners Achche Lal, Vishwanath and others were recorded as tenure holders of these plots, Dallu. Ballu and Shiv Pujan were recorded in the basic khatauni in varg-9 over plot no. 19/2/1 area 0.343 acre and plot 61/2 area O.I78 acre. Both these plots as also plot no. 19/2/2 area O 040 acre and plot no. 19/2/3 area O 015 acre were recorded in the bhumidbari khata of Achche Lal and others in the basic khatauni. But plots no 19/2/2 and 19/2/3 ware found on the spot as abadi during field to field partial Plot No. 91/2 area O 104 acre was recorded in the sirdari khata of petitioners Achche Lal and others. In their objection under section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act Dallu Ballu and Shiv Pujan sons of Charittar claimed that they acquired sirdari right in respect of plot nos. 19/2/1, 61/2 and 91/1 by adverse possession while in respect of plot nos. 19/2/2 and 19/2/3 they claimed ownership on the ground that they have got their abadi over these plots and accordingly they prayed that the names of Achche Lal and others be expunged from the revenue papers and their names be recorded therein. The recorded tenure holders Achche Lal and others contested the objection filed by Dallu, Ballu and Shiv Pujan and asserted their own right, title and interest in the plots in dispute. Their case was that Charittar, the father of Dallu was in unlawful occupation over the plot no. 19/2 area, 398 acre and plot no 61/2 area O.178 acre. A suit for his ejectment was filed under section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951) on 7-5-1960 with the allegation that Charittar, the defendant in the suit had entered into forceful possession of the suit land in August, 1366- F i e. 1958 The suit was decreed by the trial court on 10-9-1963. An appeal against the said decree was filed by Charitar. who died during the pendency of the appeal and Dallu, Ballu and Shiv Pujan were substituted in his place. The appeal was dismissed on 1-5-1967 and the decree dated 10-9-1963 passed by the trial court was affirmed. In the mean time the decree holders had moved an application for execution of the decree on 12 4-1966 and the objection filed by Dallu. Ballu and Shiv Pujan against the application for execution on 18-6-1966 was rejected and the execution Court allowed the execution application vide order dated 26-6-1967 and directed delivery of possession over the plots which were the subject matter of the decree. It is alleged that the possession was delivered to them on 3-7-1967. In view of these facts it was alleged by Achche Lal and others that Dallu and others had no claim in respect of these plots. As regards plot no 91/1 the objection filed by Dallu and others was opposed on the ground that a suit under section 229-B of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was decided in their (Achche Lal and others) favour before the commencement of the Consolidation proceedings in the village and the decision had become final between the parties.
(3.) THE parties adduced their evidence before the Consolidation Officer, who dismissed the objection filed by Dallu and others vide order dated 20-2-1969. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 6-6-1969. THE revision purporting to be on behalf of Dallu, Ballu and Shiv Pujan though filed with the signature of Ballu alone was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 9-4-1970. A writ petition it being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3658 of 1970 filed against the aforesaid orders was rejected summarily by the High Court vide order dated 29-9-1970. Petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected by Division Bench vide order dated 3-3-1976. Dallu, the petitioner in writ petition No. 21502 of 1989, preferred a revision on 8-2-1973 against the appellate order dated 6-6-1969 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the revision. His case was that he was living in Bombay and had no knowledge of the appellate order or the revisional order as also the order passed in the writ petition referred to above. Though the writ petition purported to have been filed by all three brothers but according to Dallu he was unaware of it and never authorised, in fact he could not have authorised being ignorant of the revisional order, any one to file writ petition on his behalf.;