Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arun Kumar Singh -I for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 19.6.2014, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 3.11.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.6.2015 passed in the title proceeding under section 9 -A of U.P.C.H. Act.
(2.) THE petitioners filed an objection under section 9A (2) of the Act on 21.12.1987 for recording their names over plot No. 628 (area 1 -11 -0 bigha) of village Dadri, pargana Dadri, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar as their bhumidhari holding. It has been stated by the petitioners that the land in dispute was obtained by father of the petitioners from the then Zamindar for establishing a brick kiln over it before the abolition of zamindari. Since then the brick kiln was established and was continuously running by father of the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners are in possession over it. Before date of vesting the father of the petitioners has regularly paid rent to the Zamindar. After date of vesting names of the petitioners have been recorded in Coloumn - 4 of the khatauni. Although the petitioners have acquired sirdari right over it, earlier the proceeding under section 122 -B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act has been initiated against the petitioners but due to long standing possession it was dropped and accordingly names of the petitioners be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 19.6.2014 found that Gaon Sabha and Nagar Mahapalika could not adduce any evidence to show that the land in dispute was ever vested in it. The land in dispute was obtained by the father of the petitioners from the then Zamindar for establishing the brick kiln (Pajawa) and he had been paying rent of it to the then Zamindar. The possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute has also been proved by the witnesses namely Vishwambhar Prasad, Pradhan and Mohd. Ali, Up Pradhan. In the year 1984 the proceeding under section 122 -B was started against the petitioners but it was later on dropped by order dated 13.2.1985 holding the long possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. The petitioners have acquired right under section 9 of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act. Although the petitioners have acquired bhumidhari right but as the petitioners have never taken any proceeding for recording their names prior to consolidation operation as such there objection was liable to be dismissed. On this finding the objection of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 19.6.2014. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order on the ground that the Consolidation Officer has recorded finding in favour of the petitioners that the petitioners have acquired bhumidhari right even then the objection of the petitioners was dismissed. However the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 3.11.2014 found that prior to this consolidation, in earlier consolidation the land in dispute was recorded in CH Form 6 as usar land of Gaon Sabha but the possession of the father of the petitioners was subsequently recorded in Column - 4 but order dated 5.12.2001 passed under section 42 -A of the Act and their names were directed to be deleted as such the petitioners have no right over the land of Gaon Sabha only on the basis of long possession. On this finding the appeal was dismissed. The revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 25.6.2014 holding that the land in dispute was usar land and belonging to Gaon Sabha and only on the basis of long possession no right can accrue over it. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The case of the petitioners was that the land in dispute belongs to Zamindar and the parents of the petitioners have taken it for the purposes of running brick kiln (pajawa) over it and their names were recorded in the record prior to abolition of Zamindari. Since then they had been in possession over the land in dispute. They have also raised construction over the land in dispute and residing in it continuously. Therefore the land in dispute is vested in the petitioners under section 9 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951. The Consolidation Officer has recorded finding in favour of the petitioners but objection has been dismissed only on the ground that prior to consolidation the petitioners have never claimed any right over the land in dispute.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and examined the records.;