- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J.- In the basic year consolidation record the name of Gaon Sabha was recorded over the property in dispute. Petitioner filed an objection that he is Sirdar of Plot No. 727 (area 2 Biswa 4 Biswansi) and Plot No. 736/1 (area 2 Biswa ). He further claimed to be Bhumidhari (grove holder) of Plot No. 736/2 (area 4 Bigha 1 Biswa ). Mangroo respondent No. 5 also filed his objection that he is co-tenure holder alongwith the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 11-11-1969 held that question of trees cannot be gone into by the consolidation authorities and granted liberty to the parties to get their rights declared in civil suit in respect of trees. So far as land was concerned the objection of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 26-11- 1970. He filed a revision which was also dismissed on 15-9-1973, hence the present writ petition.
(2.) IN this suit Sri Shatrughan Singh filed an application for impleadment on the ground that Gaon Sabha has allotted the land to him. He was impleaded and is now represented by his heirs (the contesting respondents ). I have heard Sri S. C. Verma, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sankatha Rai Counsel for the contesting respondent and Standing Counsel for the State Officials. Counsel for the petitioner raised following submission before me: (i) The petitioner filed a suit in respect to trees in pursuance of the observations of the Consolidation Officer dated 11-11-1969 and this suit was decreed on 8-4-1976. The contesting respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed on 1-9-1977. This order has become final and will operate as res judicata in this case. (ii) The Zamindar has filed a suit under Section 60 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in respect of Plot Nos. 736 and 701 and in this suit a commission was issued. The Commissioner has demarcated a portion of Plot No. 736 as KLMN. The suit was decided in terms of compromise on 29-5-1950 and the petitioner was held as grove holder of portion of KLMN. The consolidation Courts are bound by the same. The petitioner had filed a suit in pursuance of order dated 11-11-1969 of the Consolidation Officer against the contesting respondent only. In this suit neither Gaon Sabha nor the State of U. P. was made party and as such decision given in this case cannot be res judicata between the parties. It cannot affect the right of State or Gaon Sabha. The Zamindar had filed a suit under Section 60 of U. P. Tenancy Act in respect of Plot Nos. 736 and 701 for declaration of rights of the petitioner. In this suit a commission was issued and the commissioner has demarcated part of Plot No. 736 as KLMN. Later on this suit was decreed on 7-10-1950 on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and the Zamindar. The petitioner was held grove holder of the area demarcated as KLMN by the Commissioner. There is nothing on the record to show that this suit was fraudulent. In this suit the petitioner was held to be grove holder. After abolition of Zamindari, the petitioner became Bhumidhar of the grove under Section 18 (e) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In view of this Consolidation Court committed illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner so far as that area of Plot No. 736 is concerned which was decided in terms of compromise on 7-10-1950. In view of this judgment of Consolidation Courts are partly quashed in respect of portion of Plot No. 736 demarcated as KLMN in the Commissioner report and for which the petitioner was declared to be grove holder. The claim of the petitioner in respect of remaining area is dismissed. The parties may appear before the respondent No. 1 on 27-1-2004 and thereafter he may decide the case in accordance with law. With these observations the writ petition is partly allowed. Petition partly allowed. .;