Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jitendra Ojha appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Notices were issued to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.1.1990 but no one has put in appearance. Vide order dated 24.2.1999 the service of notice on respondent No. 2 was deemed to be sufficient.
(3.) The dispute relates to plot No. 153. In basic year khatauni respondent No. 2 was recorded over the disputed plot. The petitioner filed an objection under section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of. Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') claiming rights and for recording his name over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.5.1979 allowed the objection. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 2 Filed an appeal which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation holding that the name of the petitioner was not recorded in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Land Records Manual as such the same cannot be relied. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision. During the pendency of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner filed an application dated 21.12.1989 seeking amendment in the objections. The amendment sought was that in paragraph-4 of the objection the words 'due to adverse possession' be added. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 22.12.1989 held that the petitioner has not pleaded adverse possession and by the proposed amendment the entire nature of the case will change, and rejected the amendment application.;