S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 15.9.72 (Anneuxre-C to the writ petition) Sri S.N. Singh has been heard in support of this petition. Nobody appeared for the respondents although list has been revised.
(2.) The proceedings relates to section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is in respect to adjudication of the title between the parties. There is no dispute about the fact that in the basic year record petitioner was entered as Seerdar and opposite party was shown in Class IX. An objection was filed by the opposite party for entering of his name as Seerdar and for expunction of the name of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer allowed objection on the opposite party and directed recording of his name but on appeal filed by the petitioner judgment of the Consolidating Officer was set aside and basic years entry was directed to be maintained. Judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was taken up by the opposite party in revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation who by the order impugned before this Court allowed the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside for the reasons that the opposite party has never taken the plea of adverse possession for acquiring rights and thus Dy. Director of Consolidation in accepting the rights of the opposite party on that ground have committed an error. It is argued that for acquiring rights on the basis of the adverse possession parties has to specifically plead the same as it requires specific pleading in various respect to meet out challenge by the other parties. As this has not been done by the opposite party, learned Counsel submits that the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed.
(3.) After hearing argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, record as is available before this Court has been examined.;