Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.K. Dubey, for the petitioner and Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, for respondent -4. Other respondents are proforma parties. The original records have been summoned as such Counsel for the respondent does not propose to file counter -affidavit and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is decided finally. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 31.1.2011, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 2.6.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2014, passed in proceeding under section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute pertains to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 141 (consisting of plots 16/684 (area 0 -1 -0 bigha), 17 (area 1 -13 -0 bigha), 25 -kha (area 0 -5 -0 bigha), 34 (area 0 -2 -0 bigha), 146 (area 0 -5 -0 bigha), 148 -kha (area 0 -3 -0 bigha), 149 (area 0 -3 -0 bigha), 160 (area 1 -0 -0 bigha), 161 -kha (area 0 -11 -0 bigha), 162 (area 1 -0 -0 bigha), 212 -kha (area 1 -16 -0 bigha), 220 -kha (area 0 -2 -0 bigha), 222 (area 0 -3 -0 bigha), 223 (area 0 -3 -0 bigha), 224 (area 0 -3 -0 bigha), 230 -ka (area 0 -2 -0 bigha), 321 -kha (area 0 -14 -0 bigha), 328 -cha (area 0 -4 -0 bigha), 329 (area 6 -3 -0 bigha), 340 -ka (area 0 -10 -0 bigha), 368 -ka (area 6 -2 -0 bigha), 371 (area 0 -8 -0 bigha), 386 (area 1 -4 -0 bigha), 400 -ka (area 0 -11 -0 bigha), 436 -ga (area 0 -5 -0 bigha), 437 -kha (area 0 -2 -0 bigha), 443 -k (area 0 -10 -0 bigha), 444 -kha (area 0 -10 -0 bigha), total 28 plots (area 24 -15 -0 bigha), of village Raipura, tahsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra, which were recorded in basic consolidation year in the name of Smt. Gangi, widow of Ram Surat. During partial following disputes amongst other were noted in CH Form -4: - - "(i) Smt. Parwati daughter of Mewa (respondent -4) claimed for recording her name and deleting the name of Smt. Gangi from the khata in dispute. (ii) Shiv Shankar (respon -dent -7) claimed for recording his name over plots 160 (area 1 -0 -0 bigha), 161 (area 0 -11 -0 bigha) on the basis of sale -deed executed by Ram Surat in his favour. (iii) Amarawati (the petitioner) claimed for recording her name over plots 371 (area 0 -8 -0 bigha), 386 (area 1 -4 -0 bigha), 436 -ga (area 0 -5 -0 bigha), 443 -k (area 0 -10 -0 bigha) on the basis of sale -deed executed by Ram Surat in her favour. (iv) Zahiruddin (respondent -6) claimed for recording his name over plot 212 (area 1 -16 -0 bigha) on the basis of sale -deed executed by Ram Surat in his favour. Various other disputes were also noted in respect of different plots of khata 141 in CH Form -4 but its reference are not relevant. Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the disputes to Consolidation Officer for decision and issued notices to the parties. Subsequently Smt. Gangi filed various objections on 28.8.1991 under section 9(2) of the Act for rejecting the claims of various persons as noted in CH Form -4. On 20.8.1991, the petitioner filed objection claiming that Smt. Gangi executed two sale deeds 17.2.1989 and 13.7.1996 of the land in dispute in her favour as such her name be recorded over the khata in dispute. During pendency of the cases, before Consolidation Officer, Smt. Gangi died in August, 1998 and in her place, Amarawati was substituted as her legal representative by order dated 11.8.1999. Smt. Parwati and Nanki filed objection on. 21.8.1991 under section 9(2) of the Act, for recording their names over the land in dispute. Smt. Nanki died in January 1996 and in her place Banarasi (respondent -5) was substituted on 12.3.1996. Zahruddin and Shiv Shankar (respondents -6 and 7) also filed their separate objections under section 9(2) of the Act." All the cases were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer issued notices to the parties on 30.10.1991, fixing 11.11.1991. The cases were adjourned on 11.11.1991, 19.11.1991, 29.11.1991, 10.12.1991, 13.12.1991. On 18.12.1991, the parties took time for filing compromise and 20.12.1991 was fixed. On 20.12.1991, none of the parties or their Counsel appeared and Consolidation Officer decided all the cases ex -parte. Thereafter, Parwati filed an application dated 20.12.1991 for recall of the order, which was allowed on 20.12.1991. On the application "swikrit" has been mentioned. On the order -sheet "Restoration application filed by Parwati is allowed. Put up on 30.12.1991 for evidence of the plaintiff" has been written. Amarawati put appearance before Consolidation Officer 12.3.1992. From the order sheet of Consolidation Officer, it appears that Amarawati attended the Court on the date fixed in the case up to 12.12.2002. On 24.12.2002, statement of Parwati was recorded and on 5.5.2003, statement of her witness, Hanuman was recorded. On 26.10.2004, Amarawati was given last opportunity to adduce her evidence. On 25.9.2006, order dated 13.12.1991 passed in Case Nos. 1333 and 1334 were recalled and these cases were also consolidated with Case No. 124 and 4.11.2006 was fixed for framing issues. It appears that Amarawati challenged the order dated 25.9.2006 in Appeal No. 195 of 2006 -07 and thereafter absented from the Court of Consolidation Officer, who framed issues on 15.10.2007, ex -parte. Appeal No. 195 of 2006 -07 was dismissed on 26.7.2007. Revision No. 43/73 of 2007 -08 filed by Amarawati against the aforesaid order was dismissed in default on 4.3.2008. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer again issued notices to Amarawati and others on 26.4.2008. In spite of service, Amarawati did not appear. On 8.12.2008, Counsel for Parwati stated that evidence of Parwati had already been recorded and that may be treated evidence on her behalf. The Consolidation Officer fixed a date for arguments. On 10.5.2010, Consolidation Officer again held service on the parties was sufficient and proceeded ex parte. On 17.7.2010, Amarawati filed an application that in the application dated 20.12.1991, by fabricating order "swikrit" has been mentioned on 21.12.1991 and the petitioner be granted time to file objection in the application dated 20.12.1991 and the order dated 21.12.1991 be declared as forged. The parties filed objection and counter objection on this application and the application was heard on 3.1.2011 and 15.1.2011 was fixed for order. But in the record of Consolidation Officer, there is no order dated 15.1.2011. The case was finally decided by order dated 31.1.2011 by Consolidation Officer, who held that name of Ram Surat was recorded over the land of Mewa by making forgery in the records. As such name of Ram Surat was directed to be dieted from the land in dispute and names of Parwati and Banarasi (respondents -4 and 5) were directed to be recorded as heirs of Mewa.
(3.) AMARAWATI (the petitioner) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 14 of 2010 -11) and Zahruddin (respondent -6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 215 of 2010 -11) from the aforesaid order. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 2.6.2011 held that order dated 20.12.1991 was recalled by Consolidation Officer on 20.12.1991 and the case was restored. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Mewa son of Ram Saran in khatauni 1360 -F. In khatauni 1363 -F -1365 -F, an amal daramad recording the name of Ram Surat was made, on the basis of order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that how name of Ram Surat was recorded over the land of Mewa. Tahsildar had no right to delete the name of Mewa and record the name of Ram Surat. It has been proved from the evidence on record by respondents -4 and 5 that Parwati and Nanki were daughters and heirs of Mewa. On these findings the appeals were dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 33/33/40/83 of 2013 -14) and Zahruddin filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 32/32/39/82 of 2013 -14) against the aforesaid order. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 18.7.2014, affirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and dismissed the revisions. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;