- (1.) HEARD Shri M.A. Khan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.S.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title. In the basic year when consolidation in the area in dispute started, the agricultural land in dispute comprised in Khata No. 277 was recorded in the revenue record in the name of Mohammad Hussain, father of the contesting respondents. Petitioners and proforma opposite party no. 8 filed objections under section 9/9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P.C.H. Act) claiming co -tenancy on the ground that the land in dispute was ancestral. Initially the objections of petitioners were allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 23.05.1978. However on appeal said order was set aside, and matter was remanded. After remand objections were rejected on 18.01.1981 by the Consolidation Officer. Against the said order petitioners filed Appeal No. 668 Sayyad Ali Ahmad and other Vs. Sayyad Mohammad Hussain and others. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur, Kadipur allowed the appeal on 19.07.1982. Against the said order contesting opposite parties filed Revision No. 1535 Sayyad M. Husain Vs. Sayyad Ali Ahmad and others. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, allowed the revision on 28.08.1985, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and restored the order of Consolidation Officer, rejecting the objections of the petitioners. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) MOHAMMAD Hussain was one of the 5 sons of Kasim Ali. Giving pedigree starting from Meer Badal great grand father of Kaasim Ali, petitioners asserted that they were family members of Kaasim Ali. They further asserted that in the first settlement (in the year 1862) the property was recorded in the name of Mohammad Ali son of Meer Badal and in the second settlement (around 1892) Smt. Ala Bandi was recorded in Zimn 5 A. Smt. Ala Bandi was daughter -in -law of Mohammad Ali. Kaasim Ali was son of Zulfikar Ali who was son of Masooma Bibi daughter of Mohammad Ali. However, in third settlement in between 1934 to 1939 only name of Kaasim Ali was recorded. The entry of Kaasim Ali was continuing since much before Zamindari abolition and even after Zamindari abolition till the start of consolidation proceedings. The entry was never challenged. Some Patta and Kubuliyat was filed by the contesting opposite parties regarding which strong argument was raised on behalf of the petitioners before the courts below as well as this court to the effect that it was not proved and not genuine. Even if Patta and Kubuliyat is completely ignored it will not make least difference. It is almost impossible to produce the supporting documents in favour of an entry which is continuing since very long for about 50 or more years. In this regard reference may be made to the leading authority of this court reported in Jagdamba Singh Vs. D.D.C.,1984 2 LCD 398. The Supreme Court in Sahebdeen Khan Vs. Badloo Khan, 2003 AIR(SC) 2073 has held that long standing entries can not be questioned in Consolidation. In the following authorities it has been held that under Section 20 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act special status has been granted to khasra of 1356 Fasli and the actual (de facto) occupant as shown in the said khasra and not de jure occupant is to be conferred the status of Adhivasi/Siradar/Bhumidhar even if the entry is incorrect unless it is shown that entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. 1.Amba Prasad Vs. Abdul Noor Khan, 1965 AIR(SC) 54. 2.Smt. Sonawati vs. Sri Ram, 1968 AIR(SC) 466 3.Nath Singh and others Vs. The Board of Revenue and others, 1968 AIR(SC) 1351 4.Wali Mohammad Vs. Ram Surat, 1989 AIR(SC) 2296 5.Hira Lal and another Vs. Gajjan and others, 1990 3 SCC 285. 6.Chandrika Prasad Vs. Pullo, 2000 AIR(SC) 1785. 7.Ram Avadh and others Vs. Ram Das and others, 2008 8 SCC 58.;