Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Shiv Sagar Singh and Sri R.P. Singh, for the petitioners and Sri R.K. Pandey and Sri, Dharmendra Singh, for the contesting respondent -4. The writ petition was filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 7.11.2009 and 28.5.2009 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.12.2012 passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute relates to basic consolidation year khata 12 of village Belha, tappa Upraudh, pargana Kantit, district Mirzapur, which was recorded in the names of Jait Bahadur son of Raghunath and Vijay Bahadur son of Chandrabali. The petitioners filed an objection for recording their names also in the khata' in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioners that they and Vijay Bahadur Singh (respondent -4) were real brothers and are co -tenure holders, having 1/6 share each in the khata in dispute. Their names were directed to be mutated over the land in dispute by the orders of Naib Tahsildar dated 2.9.1958, passed in Case Nos. 90, 91 and 92. The order dated 2.9.1958 was given effect to in the khatauni 1366 -1368 F, but due to mistake of the revenue authorities, their names were not recorded in basic consolidation year khatauni. In ceiling proceeding initiated against Vijay Bahadur Singh, he filed an application dated 24.2.1976, admitting the share the petitioners, which has been accepted by the appellate authority by judgment dated 21.6.1976 and treating share of the petitioners, notice under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was withdrawn. The petitioners were in joint possession of the land in dispute. It is alleged that a compromise signed by Tilakdhari, Jait Bahadur and Chandrabali, as well as by members of Consolidation Committee, was filed before Assistant Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 30.9.1986 directed for recording the names of the petitioners over the khata in dispute, holding their 1/6 share each. Order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was given effect to in CH Form -11 and other consolidation papers and chaks were carved out on its basis.
(3.) VIJAY Bahadur Singh (respondent -4) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 392 of 2007 -08), on 23.4.2007, along with delay condonation application from the aforesaid order. It has been stated that no notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to him. Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally directed for recording the names of the petitioners on the basis of compromise, which was not signed by him. The petitioners have no share in the land in dispute. In this appeal, personal service upon the petitioners could not be effected. Settlement Officer Consolidation effected service through publication and proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte, who by his order dated 7.11.2009 held that although objection was filed by Vijay Raj Singh and Janardan Singh, claiming share along with Vijay Bahadur Singh, whose name was recorded in basic consolidation year record but the compromise was not signed either by Vijay Raj Singh and Janardan Singh or by Vijay Bahadur Singh. In stead of it, the compromise was signed by Tilakdhari Singh and Chandrabali Singh, who had no authority to sign the compromise. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and order of Assistant Consolidation Officer 30.9.1986 was set aside and basic year entry was maintained.;