Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Shri S.C. Kushwaha holding brief of Shri N.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jeevan Prakash Sharma holding brief of Shri Pankaj Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.7.1982, Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.11.2002 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.3.2015 passed in title proceedings of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of land recorded in Khata No. 110 Village Ghutai, Pargana Kulpahar, Tahsil Kulpahar, District Mahoba. In basis consolidation record, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Pyare Lal, now represented by respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Ram Swaroop, now represented by the petitioners filed an objection (registered as Case No. 3565) under section 9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 for recording his name over Plot No. 366, 368, 370, 371, 372/1, 1109, 1110, 1197 and 1198. It has been stated by the petitioner that he was owner of the land in dispute since before the date of vesting and is still in possession over it. The objection of the petitioner was contested by Pyare Lal. The case of the Pyare Lal was that he was Adhivasi of the land in dispute and accordingly name was recorded over it in the year 1955 i.e. in the year 1362 Fasli and since then he is in exclusive possession over the land in dispute. Apart from documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner, Ram Swaroop and Bodh Ram witnesses were examined. Pyare Lal was examined himself. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties by order dated 13.7.1982 found that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Ram Swaroop 1362 Fasli. The Khatauni of 1362 Fasli contains Amal daramad of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 12.1.1956 passed in case No. 807 by which Plot No. 370, 368 and 366 were directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner while remaining plots were recorded in the name of Pyare Lal. Thereafter, the land in dispute was exclusively recorded in the name of Pyare Lal upto basic consolidation year and the entry has not been challenged by Pyare Lal. Ram Swaroop came to know about the name of Pyare Lal in 1956 but he did not challenged the entry at that time. It is in consolidation i.e. in the year 1976, the objection was filed as such the objection was highly barred by time. Ram Swaroop could not prove his possession either from any documentary evidence or from oral evidence over the land in dispute. On these findings, the objection of Ram Swaroop was dismissed. Ram Swaroop filed an appeal registered as Appeal No. 6 from the aforesaid order, the appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by the order dated 30.11.2002 affirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision registered as Revision No. 699/35/07/2014 -2015 from the aforesaid order in which also the findings has been affirmed and the revision was dismissed by the order dated 13.3.2015. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that by way mistake committed by Lekhpal, the land in dispute was came to be recorded in the name of Pyare Lal. The entry of name of Pyare Lal was challenged by the petitioner in the year 1956 but inadvertently some plots were left over in the proceeding in 1956. The Sub Divisional Officer by the order dated 12.1.1986 found that names of Pyare Lal was wrongly recorded over Plot No. 366, 368 and 370. Accordingly, the application was allowed. Ram Swaroop remained through out in possession over the land in dispute. He has also filed the land receipt and irrigation slip to show that land revenue as well as irrigation dues were paid by him. From oral evidence of Ram Swaroop and Bodh Ram possession of Ram Swaroop was proved but the consolidation authorities have illegally ignored the evidence on record. He submits that Ram Swaroop was entitled to file objection during consolidation under section 9 of the Act against the illegal entry but the objection was not properly decided.;