S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) SUBJECT matter of impugnment in the instant petition is the judgment and order dated 15.7.1974, passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation, Ballia whereby revision was allowed and order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 20.3.1970 was set aside.
(2.) THE dispute in the instant petition centres round plot Nos. 497 and 876. It would appear from a perusal of record that Opp. Party No. 4 namely Mathura (since deceased) was recorded as sirdar in the baste year. Upon commencement of consolidation proceeding, petitioner preferred objection under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act for the relief of declaring her as bumidhar of both the plots. The claim of the petitioner, it would further transpire from the record, was founded on the ground that plot No. 497/2/2 was grove land which had descended on her from the time of her ancestor Manager Rai and further that she was a disabled person within the definition of Section 21 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and also that even if, Opp. Party No. 4 was assumed to be in possession, he could at best be accorded only asami rights and not the sirdari rights over the land in question. The objection aforestated came to be rejected and therefore, appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In appeal, the petitioner was held to be having sirdari rights while opp. party No, 4 was held asami over plot No. 497/2/2 admeasuring .79 acres. Aggrieved by the order, opp. party No. 4 preferred revision before the Deputy Director, Consolidation who allowed the revision filed on behalf of Mathura deceased and reversed the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Insofar as revision filed by Smt. Ram Rani is concerned, it was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that indisputably plot No. 497/2/2 was entered as a grove on the date of vesting further submitting that a sub -tenant/occupant of grove cannot acquire adhivasi and/or sirdari rights over a grove and at the most, he could acquire asami rights over the grove as envisaged in Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. In connection with the proposition, the learned counsel adverted to Section 21 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In the last, the learned counsel sought quashing of the impugned order passed by Deputy Director Consolidation being one against the evidence on record. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opp, Party No. 4 contended that Opp. party No. 4 was in possession over the land in dispute since the time of his father and as such he will be deemed to have acquired sirdari rights. He further contended that since petitioner was not physically handicapped or disabled on the date of vesting nor is there any vestige of evidence having been adduced consistent with the requirements of Section 157 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. the rights over the land as claimed by opp. party No. 4 would accrue in his favour. Lastly, the learned counsel tried to prop up the impugned order stating that the said order commends itself for being affirmed.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record.;