Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Moti Lal for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 4.12.1991 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.2.2014 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".
(2.) THE dispute relates to plot No. 489, area 1.80 hectare of village Patti Narendrapur, tehsil Shahganj, district Jaunpur. In basic consolidation record the land in dispute was recorded in khata No. 8 in which names of Ambika Prasad (now represented by the petitioners) son of Mohan, Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad sons of Hajari Lal (now represented by respondents -4 to 9) were recorded. Ambika Prasad filed an objection for deleting the names of Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad from the land in dispute. The case was contested by Virendra Kuamar and Gaya Prasad. They have stated that the land in dispute was sold by Ambika Prasad in favour of their father through registered sale deed and on the basis of the sale deed their names were duly mutated in the revenue record and since then their names were continuing over the land in dispute and they were in possession over it. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 2.8.1988 found that no objection under section 9 of the Act was filed by Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad and they had not produced a copy of the sale deed, accordingly, the names of Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad were directed to be deleted from the land in dispute. Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. Before the Appellate Court the sale deed dated 11.1.1978 was filed by them. The appeal was heard by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 15.9.1988 found that Ambika Prasad had already executed the sale deed dated 11.1.1978 and on the basis of sale deed the names of Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad were mutated in the revenue record and mutation was incorporated in khatauni 1379 fasli. The mutation order was also mentioned in the Register Malikan. In such circumstances, it was found that the names of Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad were rightly recorded in the basic consolidation record and on these findings the appeal was allowed the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.8.1988 was set aside and it was held that Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad were owners of plot No. 489. The petitioners filed two revisions against the aforesaid order. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 19.2.2014 dismissed the revisions. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale deed was not produced before the Consolidation Officer nor its due execution was proved. Virendra Kumar and Gaya Prasad also not filed any objection under section 9 of the Act. In such circumstances the Consolidation Officer has rightly held that their names were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute. The sale deed was filed before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court instead of deciding the appeal himself should have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for recording of fresh evidence of the parties. However, the appellate Court has illegally relied upon the sale deed dated 11.1.1978, which was a forged documents. The petitioners have taken a specific ground in the revisions in this respect but the Revisional Court has also not considered the grievance of the petitioners and dismissed the revisions. The orders of respondents -2 and 3 are illegal and liable to be set aside.;