Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) ORDER dated 26.11.2013 passed in these writ petitions on the order -sheet of first writ petition is quoted below: - - "Learned Counsel for both the parties before start of the arguments stated that all the pending substitution applications in both the writ petitions might be allowed. Accordingly, all the substitution applications pending in both the writ petitions are allowed after condoning the delay in filing the same and setting aside the abatement, if any. Heard Shri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan and Shri Moinuddin Khan, learned Counsel for petitioners in the writ petition of 1977, who are also contesting respondents in the writ petition of 1976 and Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma and Shri J.B.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for petitioners in the writ petition of 1976, who are also contesting respondents in the writ petition of 1977. Judgment reserved. On inquiry from Court, learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed that the party in whose favour matter is decided is ready to pay a reasonable amount (Rs. 15,000/ - to 20,000/ -) to the other side." In the basic year the name of Gajadhar was entered in the revenue record over the agricultural land in dispute. The first writ petition pertains to the agricultural land comprised in plot Nos. 867, 939 and 123 of khata No. 107, 109 and 110 situate in village Ram Na -gar Maujpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Pratapgarh. The land in dispute in the second writ petition is comprised in plot Nos. 5 and 64 of khata No. 10 and plot Nos. 67 and 68 of khata No. 121 and is situate in village Gulraha Pargana Tehsil District Pratapgarh. Babu Ram, father of Gajadhar, the recorded tenure holder in the basic year purchased some property in the Court auction on 11.8.1932. Copy of the sale (auction) certificate is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It contains plot numbers, area and details of the trees standing upon each plot. It also includes a house situate in plot No. 993. After the number of trees it is also mentioned that how much share was sold/auctioned either half or 1/4 or 1/8 etc. The bone of contention is as to whether through the said auction/sale certificate only trees were sold or the plots over which said trees were standing were also sold. The auction was for Rs. 200/ -. However, it is undisputed that immediately after 1932 the names of the persons whose share was sold and who were earlier recorded over the plots mentioned in the certificate of sale/auction were expunged from the revenue record and name of Babu Ram was entered. The same position continued till the Zamindari Abolition and even after zamindari abolition till the basic year. The only change was that after the death of Babu Ram his son Gajadhar was shown to be tenure holder in the revenue record. Gajadhar died during proceedings before the consolidation Courts and was survived by Awadh narain and Vijay Narain, petitioners in the second writ petition and respondents in the first writ petition. In the first writ petition order was passed by CO. Antu on 10.1.1970 in case No. 901. Against the said order Appeal No. 8419/345 was filed which was decided by S.O.C. On 4.2.1975. Thereafter, Revision No. 8336/1285/1380 Jai Narain Singh and others v. Awadh Narain Singh and others was filed which was dismissed by D.D.C. Pratapgarh on 21.9.1976.
(2.) AS far as second writ petition of 1977 is concerned, C.O. passed the order on 21.2.1969 in Case Nos. 5711 and 5712 Jai Narain Singh and others v. Gajadhar. Against the said order Appeal Nos. 5738 and 5739, Gajadhar v. Jai Narain and others was filed which was dismissed by Asstt. S.O.C. Pratapgarh on 16.6.1970. Thereafter Revision Nos. 4301/1223/641 and Revision Nos. 4338/1324/697 were filed which were dismissed by D.D.C. Pratapgarh on 29.1.1977. In the orders challenged in the first writ petition it was held that as name of Babu Ram (and thereafter of his son Gajadhar) was continuing since 1932, hence, claim of Jai Narain, Sheetla Din and Karedin, sons of Ram Pratap could not be accepted. However, a contrary view was taken in the order challenged through the second writ petition. As far as first writ petition is concerned, the C.O. had initially decided the matter in favour of Jai Narain and his brothers, however, S.O.C. had reversed the said order and D.D.C. affirmed the order of S.O.C. The D.D.C. in the judgment challenged through the first writ petition categorically held that absolutely no objection was raised from 1932 till the basic year (when consolidation started) regarding entry of name of Gajadhar or of his father Babu Ram when he was alive. It was also held that possession of Jai Narain or his brothers was not established after the auction sale.
(3.) IN my opinion even if it is assumed that through the auction land was not sold still everyone was under the impression that the land had been sold, name of Babu Ram was recorded in the revenue record in the land in dispute which continued for about 35 years unchallenged. Accordingly, his right could not be questioned after such a long time. Entry of the name of Babu Ram and after his death of his son Gajadhar in the revenue record clearly established that they were in possession. Their possession was never questioned.;