- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Shri Shankata Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nagendra Kr. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25-2-1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 15-1-1971 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Brief facts which emerge from the pleading of parties are: Dispute in writ petition relates to plots of Khata No. 46 namely plot Nos. 210, 223, 331, 353 and 378/2. Notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as Consolidation Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 10-5-1969. In the basic year records the name of petitioner Ram Narain was recorded over land of Khata in dispute. An objection under Section 9 of Consolidation Act was filed by respondent No. 4 who stated in the objection that name of petitioner is wrongly recorded over land in dispute. It was stated that the land was earlier recorded in the name of Smt. Ganga Devi, step mother of Babu Ram, respondent No. 4 and she having no authority to transfer the land executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It was claimed that land originally belongs to Raja Ram, father of respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 being heir of Raja Ram is entitled for the land in dispute. It was further claimed that Smt. Ganga Devi, step mother of petitioner was only looking after the land during period of minority of respondent No. 4. The objection filed by respondent No. 4 was contested by the petitioner. It was claimed that Smt. Ganga Devi had acquired the land in dispute from whom petitioner purchase the land by registered sale deed dated 28-6-1967. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 13-5-1970 rejected the objection of respondent No. 4. The Consolidation Officer directed that entry in the name of the petitioner shall continue. The Consolidation Officer recorded the finding that land in dispute was self-acquisition of Smt. Ganga Devi. The Consolidation Officer held that respondent No. 4 having not filed suit for possession for 8 years after attaining majority, he is debarred for recovery of possession of the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer also noted in his judgment that name of Smt. Ganga Devi was recorded under the orders dated 14-12-1954 Case No. 235/3094 passed by Tahsildar. An appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by respondent No. 4 who vide order dated 15- 1-1971 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed recording of name of respondent No. 4 in place of the petitioner. A revision was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 17-4-1971. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 3076 of 1971 challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. This Court vide its judgment dated 19-4-1973 allowed the writ petition filed by petitioner by setting aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-4-1971. The case was remitted to the Revisional Court for deciding the revision afresh according to law. Copy of judgment of the High Court has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
(3.) AFTER the remand by the High Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25-2- 1975 dismissed the revision of petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order observed that it is acceptable to both the counsels that land in dispute was acquisition of Raja Ram. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further held that adverse possession of the petitioner can at best be treated with effect from 1967 when sale deed was executed in his favour by Smt. Ganga Devi and since consolidation operation started in the village in 1969, the revision of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further observed that respondent No. 4 Babu Ram cannot be held responsible for litigation started by Smt. Kailasa the mother of respondent No. 4 against Smt. Ganga Devi. It has further been observed that there is no evidence that there has been any litigation between respondent No. 4 and Ganga Devi after 1959 when Babu Ram attained majority. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25-2-1975 as well as the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is also necessary to note certain more relevant facts which are on the record for appreciating the controversy between the parties. On the land in dispute, the name of Ram Swaroop was recorded as tenant who died before Abolition of Zamindari. It has come in the evidence that Raja Ram, husband of Smt. Kailasa and Smt. Ganga Devi was in possession from 1357 to 1361 Fasli. Raja Ram also died and after the death of Raja Ram Smt. Ganga Devi filed an application for recording her name before the revenue officer on which an order was passed on 14-12-1954 for recording the name of Smt. Ganga Devi as Sirdar. The name of Ganga Devi is recorded from 1362 Fasli onwards. A dispute under Section 145 Cr. P. C. started regarding possession of land in dispute between Smt. Ganga Devi and Smt. Kailasa under Section 145 Cr. P. C. By the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 25-7-1955 Smt. Ganga Devi was declared in possession. A suit No. 858/1955 was filed by Babu Ram (as minor in guardianship of Smt. Kailasa against Smt. Ganga Devi with regard to other lands ). Babu Ram attained majority on 20-5-1959 having been born on 21-5-1941. A sale deed was executed by Smt. Ganga Devi in favour of petitioner in the year 1957. An application for mutation was given by the petitioner on the basis of sale deed. The said mutation application was allowed by the order dated 14-2-1969 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer. Notification dated 29-4-1969 was issued under the Consolidation Act with regard to village in question in which objection was filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 9 on 5-2-1970.;