- (1.) Heard Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The dispute in the writ petition relates to khata nos. 28 and 29 of village Taunga Kalan, Pargana Khairagarh, District Allahabad. Only some of the plots of the aforesaid khata are said to be in dispute namely, 241/2, area 1-3-10 of Khata no. 28 and plots nos. 49/1, 124/1, 125/1, 125/2, 126, 127/1, 131, 145, 157, 163M, 164, 165, 176, 244, 256 and 292, total of 16 plots having an area of 14-3-0. In the basic year record, the name of the Ayodhya Prasad, the petitioner was not recorded over khata no. 28 while over the khata no. 29 the name of Ayodhya Prasad, Smt Sahdei widow of Sarju Prasad, and Smt. Lohari widow of Babu Lal were recorded as sirdar. There was an entry under class-9 in favour of the respondents who were to be found in possession during partal. An objection under Section 9-A (2) was filed by the respondents claiming title to the aforementioned plots on the basis of adverse possession. The respondents also claimed 1/3rd share in khata no. 29 on the basis of a sale-deed dated 20.07.1968 alleged to have been executed by Smt Lohari in favour of the minor sons of Dwarika Prasad, Badri Prasad and Jagdish Prasad respectively. Thus, apart from the claim of the adverse possession, the claim of the respondents to 1/3rd share in khata no. 29 was based on this registered sale deed.
(3.) The petitioner contested the objection alleging that Smt Lohari was unheard of for last twenty five years and she would be presumed to be dead. A bhumidhari sanad was obtained by some imposter and thereafter a sale deed in favour of the respondents was also executed by the same imposter claiming to be Smt Lohari. It was further alleged that proceedings under Section 134 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for grant of bhumidhar is sanad in favour of the alleged imposter had been decided against her and upon failing to secure rights on the basis of the bhumidharis sanad, fraudulent entries in the records were made whereupon a suit under Section 229-B and 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by them which however abated on the start of the consolidation operations. The Consolidation Officer (the CO) by his order dated 28.04.1976 rejected the objection on the finding that the notice under Section PA- 10 had not been issued and entries were in consistent and not continuous and did not contain the diary number etc. There existed no entries in the khasras of 1374 and 1375 fasli in favour of the objectors Aggrieved by the order of the CO, the respondents filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the SOC) on 04.07.1978.;