- (1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioners pray to quash the order dated, 20th October, 1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer-I, Ballia (Respondent No. 2) (as contained in Annexure-6) rejecting their objection preferred under section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the revisional order, dated 20th February, 1982 disposing of their Revision No. 63 (as contained in Annexure-8 ).
(2.) THE main thrust of the submission of Sri S. N. Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing in support of the Rule is that since the land in question, which measures 12 decimals of Plot No. 1987/2 appertaining to Khata No. 82, village Khajuri, Tahsil Sikandarpur East, district Ballia, stands recorded in the land revenue records as grove and accordingly in view of Section 3 (2) Explanation I of the Act could not be allotted in the chak of Respondents 3 and 4 and accordingly the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Mr. Ojha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4, on the other hand, contended that since the objections of the petitioner was filed after more than 4 years and odd months it was rightly rejected by the Consolidation Officer as being barred by limitation and the revisional authority has also rightly upheld that order and accordingly no interference is required by this court. The Consolidation Officer, during his local inspection, had not found any grove rather only six trees scattered on the land. Mr. Srivastava in reply further submitted that in view of the mandate of law as contained in Explanation I of Section 3 (ii) of the Act the Consolidation Officer, was required to record a finding as to whether the land in question was a grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued and not when the Consolidation Officer had allegedly made his local inspection.
(3.) IT is true that the revisional authority has upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner as 'being barred by limitation but it appears that while adjudicating the issue as to whether there was a grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued was lost sight of. Much importance was attached to the facts stated by the Consolidation Officer in his local inspection. No finding has been recorded as to what was the nature of the land in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which notification under section 4 of the Act was issued. For the aforesaid infirmity I am of the view, that Revision No. 63 requires remittance and fresh adjudication in the light of the observations made as above.;