Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.K. Mishra for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5.3.2012 passed by Sub -Divisional Officer in the proceedings under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and the order dated 25.2.2013 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE dispute relates to plot No. 1668 M area 0 -15 -9 bigha of village Mansoorghadi, Sikandarabad Dehat, Pargana & Tehsil Sikandarabad District Bulandshahar. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 109 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules for mutation of his name over the land in dispute in pursuance of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 11.11.1992. On the allegations that no order was being passed on the said application the father of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 35327 of 2010 before this Court which had been disposed of by order dated 17.6.2010 with direction to the Collector Bulandshahar to consider and decide the application of the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order. When the certified copy of the aforesaid order has been produced before the Collector, he called for a report from Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer submitted his report mentioning therein that no application under Rule 109 -A was registered in Misilband Register maintained in the consolidation. The mutation in CH Form 11 has been incorporated by the alleged order of Consolidation Officer dated 11.11.1992 in Case No. 870, under section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but there was no record available relating to Case No. 870 also. The consolidation operation in the village was cancelled by notification dated 3.9.2005 of under section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act thereafter the case was registered before Sub -Divisional Officer, Sikandarabad, district Bulandshahar under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Sub -Divisional Officer by order dated 5.3.2012 found that possession of the petitioner on plot No. 1668 M area 0 -15 -9 bigha was not proved. The record relating to allotment of the land as alleged in the year 1989, is not available. The photostat copy of the alleged resolution dated 11.8.1989 which has been produced by the petitioner contains names of 24 persons in one resolution while in other, names of 32 persons have been mentioned which is alleged to have been signed by Lekhpal and Pradhan. But as this record relating to allotment, is not available in Tehsil, as such, these papers are forged and fabricated. The order which has been filed as Annexure in the writ petition, in the High Court of Case No. 640 of 2007 under Rule 109 -A was not registered, as such it has been held that the petitioner, on the basis of forged and fabricated papers, has applied for recording his name, which is not accepted. On this finding the application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner filed a revision registered as Revision No. 113 of 2011 -12 from the aforesaid order. In the memorandum of revision the petitioner has mentioned that land in dispute was allotted to him by the resolution of Land Management Committee dated 11.8.1989 which was approved by Sub -Divisional Officer on 20.8.1989. When the village was placed under consolidation operation he filed an application (registered as Case No. 870 of 1992) under section 12 of the Act which was decided by Consolidation Officer by order dated 11.11.1992. The order dated 11.11.1992 was also incorporated in CH Form 11 on 15.11.1992. However, the Consolidation was cancelled on 3.9.2005 as such in the revenue record name of the petitioner could not be recorded. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and has been in possession over the land in dispute as such his right under section 122 -B(4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 has also been matured. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner and he by order dated 25.2.2013 found that the petitioner wants to get his name mutated on the basis of patta of the year 1989 and after such a long time the name of the petitioner cannot be mutated in the proceeding under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. On this finding the revision of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 25.2.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Commissioner has illegally failed to take any notice of the various grounds raised by the petitioner, in the memorandum of revision. The order of Consolidation Officer was final and is conclusive and cannot be ignored by the revenue authorities. The petitioner is in actual and physical possession over the land in dispute and belonging to Scheduled Caste category as such he has perfected his right under section 122 -B (4 -F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on non -application of mind.;