RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ram Singh, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for State of U.P., Sri Anuj Kumar, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Collector dated 09.12.2003, dismissing the suit of the petitioners, under Section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Additional Commissioner dated 31.05.2005 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 11.07.2014, dismissing appeal and revision of the petitioners.
(3.) RAM Adhar and Chunna (the petitioners) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 89/85) under Section 229 -B of the Act, for declaring them as 'bhumidhar with transferable right' of plots 526 -gha (area 3 -10 -0 bigha) (old plot -1075), 540 -ka (area 1 -17 -0 bigha) (old plot -1082), 541 -kha (area 0 -19 -10 bigha) (old plot -1092), 559 (area 0 -5 -0 bigha) (old plot -1085), 577 -kha (area 1 -17 -0 bigha) (old plot -1103/2) and 598 (area 0 -5 -0 bigha) (old plot -1114/2) (total area 8 -13 -10 bigha) of village Garauti, pargana and district Banda. It has been stated in the plaint that the land in dispute was holdings of the petitioners since before date of vesting. After date of vesting they had become its bhumidhar. The petitioners were throughout in possession of the land in dispute. Lekhpal illegally recorded the land in dispute as banjar in the revenue records. The petitioners could not know about this mistake during consolidation. It is only in October, 2000, when they took extract of khatauni then they came to know about the mistake. The suit was filed on 05.03.2001. The suit was contested by State of U.P. and Gram Panchayat. The allegation that the land in dispute was ancestral property of the petitioners was denied. It has been stated that land in dispute was throughout recorded as banjar land and the property of State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha. The petitioners were never in possession of the land in dispute. The suit was barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioners, apart from documentary evidence, examined Chunna, Siddha Gopal and Bhagwandeen, ARK. On behalf of the State of U.P., Sukhlal, Lekhpal was examined. Deputy Collector, by judgment dated 09.12.2003 held that the petitioners could not prove their case and suit is barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. On these findings, the suit was dismissed. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 132/134 of 2003 -04) against the aforesaid decree. The appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by his judgment dated 17.12.2003, upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 87 of 2004 -05), which was dismissed by Board of Revenue, U.P. by judgment dated 11.07.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed mass of documentary evidence and also examined witnesses. None of the Courts below have referred/considered any document and other evidence on record and dismissed the suit holding that the petitioners have failed to prove their case. The land in dispute was recorded in the names of the petitioners in 1356 F with a period of cultivation of 70 years. Their names were recorded in khatauni 1359 F, 1360 F, 1361 F and 1362 F but due to mistake of the Lekhpal, it was not recorded in basic as well as final consolidation records. The petitioners are illiterate persons and could not know about the revenue as well as consolidation record as such they could not file any objection under Section 9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Order of Deputy Collector was illegal and was liable to be set aside but the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were illegally dismissed. ;