S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Impugned herein are the judgment and orders dated 15.9.1970 and 26.8.1974 passed by Asstt. Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti respectively.
(2.) The dispute in the instant petit on revolves round plot No. 391 admeasuring 8 Biswa 3 Dhur. It would appear from the record that the afore-stated plot was initially recorded in the name of Hardeo, husband of the petitioner as Bhumidhar on the date of vesting and Bhumidhari Sanad was also issued in the name of Hardeo. Subsequently, the plot came to be recorded in the name of Paras Nath and for basis, it was alleged that the petitioner agreed for exchange of said plot on 21.2.1944 in favour of Paras Nath in lieu of plot No. 375, which stood in the name of Paras Nath. During consolidation operation, petitioner preferred an objection with the prayer to expunge the name of Paras Nath and in his place, to record her name as Bhumidhar in the revenue records. The Consolidation Officer by means of its judgment dated 29.9.1967 delivered a verdict leaning in favour of petitioner whereby name of Paras Nath was directed to be expunged from the revenue record as against plot No. 391 and that of the petitioner to be mutated in his place. In appeal and revision, the Asstt. Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director Consolidation took contrary view and it is in the above background that the present petition came to be filed in this Court.
(3.) The quintessence of arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the plot in question was recorded in the name of petitioner's husband on the date of vesting as Bhumidhar and the plot was never parted with in exchange as alleged by Paras Nath. The learned Counsel further submitted that the plot No. 375 which is said to have been given to the petitioner in exchange still stands in the name of Paras Nath in the revenue record. He also refuted existence/execution of any agreement (Iqramama) dated 21.2.1944 and submitted that it was a concocted one and has been manufactured with a specific purpose to a design and was never given effect to. It has been further submitted that the aforesaid agreement was never brought on record at any stage in the consolidation proceedings. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite party tried to prop up the impugned orders stating that the plot in question was given to Paras Nath in exchange of plot No. 375. He also contended that the petitioner was not recorded as Bhumidhar prior to or even after the date of vesting and her rights are still born.;