Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Satish Chandra Sitapuri, for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, for respondents -2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.12.2005 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
(2.) THE dispute relates to basic consolidation year khata 40 consisting plot 601 (area 2 -7 -0 bigha) of village Allunagar Diguria, pargana and district Lucknow, which was recorded in the names of Mohd. Latif and Mohd. Shafiqui (now represented by respondents -2 and 3). Lakhan son of Bhawani (now represented by the petitioner) filed an objection under section 9 -A of the Act, for recording his name over the land in dispute, claiming himself to be bhumidhar in possession of it. The petitioner took the case that land in dispute was his tenancy holding since before date of vesting. He planted grove over it and gave it to Kasim Khan to look after the grove. After death of Kasim Khan, his widow Batasa was looking the grove. After death of Batasa, the respondents got their names mutated over it although they had no concern with the land in dispute. The respondents contested the case on the ground that Kasim Khan was recorded occupant of the land in dispute since before the date of vesting as such under U.P. Land Reform Supplementary Act, 1954, he had become adhiwasi under Section 240 -A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and thereafter sirdar. After death of Batasa widow of Kasim Khan, they, being daughter's sons, inherited the land in dispute. They deposited 20 time of land revenue and acquired bhumidhari right over it on 10.8.1970. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 13.12.1996 held that that witnesses of the petitioner have admitted that the respondents were in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner also admitted that the land in dispute was given to Kasim Khan for planting grove. Name of Kasim Khan was recorded in column IX of the khatauni 1363F as such Kasim Khan was sirdar of the land in dispute and the respondents inherited him and acquired bhumidhari certificate. On these findings objection of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 9.5.2005 held that in khasra 1358F name of Lala was recorded in column 5 and name of Kasim Khan was recorded in column 21. The respondents could not prove that how name of Kasim Khan was recorded in 1363F khatauni. Entry of the name of Kasim Khan in 1363F is forged. No right can be given to him on the basis of forged entry. On these findings the appeal was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer was set aside and the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded over it. The respondents filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 16.12.2005 held that the respondents could not adduce any evidence to show that their names were legally recorded over the land in dispute. There is no evidence to show that Lala son of Mata -din and Lala son of Bhawanidin were one and same person. In such circumstances, the land in dispute was liable to be vested in Gaon Sabha. On these findings, the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for fresh trial and decision on merit after impleading Gaon Sabha and giving opportunity of evidence/hearing the parties. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner proved that name of Lala was recorded since 1332F as hereditary tenant of the land in dispute. After date of vesting he acquired bhumidhari right over it. The grove was planted by Lala. Kasim Khan was permitted to look after the grove. It has been proved from the oral and documentary evidence on record that grove was through out over the land in dispute. No adhiwasi right can accrue over the grove land. There are no person in the village of the name of Lala son of Matadin. Matadin was written for Bhawanidin due to mistake of Patwari. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have concurrently held that names of Kasim Khan or the respondents were recorded over the land in dispute without any basis. Entry of the name of Kasim Khan of the year 1363F was held to be forged. The respondents could not produce any paper to show that any proceeding was ever held before competent authority under section 240 -A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. No right can accrue to any person on the basis of forged entry. If bhumidhari certificate was obtained on the basis of forged papers, then it itself will not confer any right to the respondents. He submits that entire evidence was of the parties were on the record. Gaon Sabha never claimed any right over the land in dispute. In any case, under section 11 -C of the Act, consolidation authorities are fully authorized to pass any order in favour of State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha. No remand was required. Or.of respondent -1 is illegal and be set aside.;