Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.4.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.1.2015, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) THE dispute relates to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 510 [consisting plots 34 (area 0.84 acre), 389 (area 0.16 acre) and 776 (area 1.60 acre)] of village Kashipura, tahsil Kulpahar, district Mahoba, which was recorded in the name of Chinuwa (respondent -3). Notification under section 9 of the Act for the village was issued on 15.9.1981, section 20 was issued on 20.1.1983. Thereafter Provisional Consolidation Scheme was confirmed and possession over confirmed chaks were delivered up to 31.8.1985. As no objection was filed up to that time as such chak was carved out in the name of Chinuwa. It is alleged that Mahendra Singh (the petitioner) filed a time barred objection, claiming the land in dispute on the basis of his continuous possession since before date of vesting, along with delay condonation application. Notice issued by Consolidation Officer to Chinuwa was returned unserved with report that Chinuwa had gone out of village. Thereafter, notices were published in newspaper 'Dainik Karmyug Prakash' and Consolidation Officer, on its basis by order dated 27.4.1986 proceeded ex -parte against respondent -3 and recorded statement of Mahendra Singh and his witness Nathuwa on 2.5.1986 and by order dated 20.11.1986 allowed the objection and directed for recording the petitioner's name over new plots 2 -Ra (area 0.18 acre), 211 (area 0.22 acre), 212 (area 0.32 acre), 687 (area 1.32 acre), 1261 (area 0.59 acre) and 1265 (area 0.23 acre).
(3.) CHINUWA filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 80 of 2012) from the aforesaid order along with delay condonation application on 11.1.2012. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 30.4.2012 held that the petitioner did not raise any dispute during partal claiming his right over the land in dispute nor filed any objection under section 9 within time. The objection of the petitioner, report of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 3.1.1986, notice issued in the case and the order dated 20.11.1986 were in the handwriting of one and the same person. Although in the judgment, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had filed documentary evidence to prove his possession but there was no documentary evidence on record. For these reasons it was held that entire record was fabricated and delay in filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal was allowed. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.11.1986 was set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after giving opportunity of evidence/hearing to the parties.;