S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer Consolidation and that of Consolidation Officer dated 4.12.1974, 16.1.1971 and 5.2.1970 respectively.
(2.) Proceedings are under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act which is in respect to adjudication of title between the parties. Dispute is in respect to Plot No. 30, area. 98 Acres situated in village Serajpur, Pargana Bhadaon, District Ballia which was recorded in the name of the petitioners. Name of respondents 4 to 6 appear to have been recorded in Class IX. Objection was filed by the petitioners under section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming expunction of the entry in the name of the respondents which was of Class IX. At the same time objection was filed by the respondents also claiming their names to be recorded as Sirdar and for expunction of the name of the petitioners. In the light of the respective claims, parties after framing issues adduced their oral and documentary evidence. Consolidation Officer accepted/allowed claim of the opposite parties in respect to an area of 54 Acres only and therefore two appeals came before the appellate authority. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed to the extent that now their rights have been accepted over an area of .67 Acres and thus revisions came before the Deputy Director of Consolidation from both sides. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed revision filed by the opposite parties and now in the last stretch of the litigation in the consolidation hierarchy opposite parties have been given rights over the entire area of .98 Acres. Revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed been placed on the decision given by this Court in case of Puttu Singh and others v. Kirat Singh and others, 1966 RD 42. It is then submitted that in fact entry in favour of the petitioner's predecessor namely Ramdhan by which benefit is sought to be claimed by the petitioners has been rightly negatived by the Courts below on the findings that near about 1356 Fasli Ramdhan died and therefore entries in the name of Ramdhan cannot confer any right on the petitioners. Submission is that entry is to be proved to be lawful and thus the entry of which reliance is sought to be placed having not been proved to be lawful no title can be claimed by the petitioners. Reliance in support of the aforesaid has been placed on the decision given in case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others, AIR 1997 SC 2181. Submission is that finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below and therefore it is not a case for interference by this Court.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid, the Court has examined the matter and the records as exist before, this Court have been perused.;