Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, for respondent -3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.1.2005 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.2014, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute was in respect of 2 -3 -0 bigha land of basic consolidation year khata 96 (total area 11 -13 -0 bigha), of village Bhatauliya, tahsil Robertsganj, district Sonbhadra, which was recorded in the name of Bhoju son of Ramrati (now represented by the petitioners). Sukkal (now represented by respondents -3 to 5) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 288) under section 9 -A of the Act, claiming an area of 2 -3 -0 bigha land from khata 96. The case of the respondents was that Sukkal was granted patta of an area of 5 -0 -0 bigha of old plot No. 13/19 while Bhoju was granted patta of an area of 10 -0 -0 bigha of old plot No. 13/19. Record operation took place in the village in 1369 F. After record operation, an area of 5 -0 -0 bigha of old plot No. 13/19 came to be recorded in the name of Sukkal in khatas 43 and 63 while an area of 10 -0 -0 bigha of old plot No. 13/19 came to be recorded in the name of Bhoju in khatas 36 and 44. 13 biswa land from the khata of Bhoju was acquired for construction of canal. But in basic consolidation year an -area of 11 -13 -0 bigha was recorded in the name of Bhoju and an area of 2 -17 -0 bigha was recorded in the name of Sukkal. 2 -3 -0 bigha land, which is in excess of the khata of Bhoju belonged to his khata. The case was contested by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 26,12.2002 held that the respondents could not prove as to how area was reduced from their khata and included in the khata of the petitioners. On these findings objection of Sukkal was dismissed. Sukkal filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 356/186) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 27.1.2005 held that from khatauni 1359 F -1360 F, it was proved that Sukkal was granted patta of an area of 5 -0 -0 bigha of old plot No. 13/19 while Bhoju was granted patta of an area of 10 -0 -0 bigha of old plot 13/19. Record operation took place in the village in 1369 F. After record operation, an area of 5 -0 -0 bigha of old plot 13/19 came to be recorded in the name of Sukkal in khatas 43 and 63 while an area of 10 -0 -0 bigha of old plot 13/19 came to be recorded in the name of Bhoju in khatas 36 and 44. From corresponding khasra prepared after record operation it was proved that plots 122 (area 1 -14 -0 bigha), 152 (area 0 -3 -0 bigha), 153 (area 0 -1 -0 bigha), 154 (area 0 -10 -0 bigha), 156 ((area 0 -2 -0 bigha) and 157 (area 7 -12 -0 bigha) total 10 -0 -0 bigha) was came to be recorded in the name of Bhoju from old plot 13/20. 13 biswa land from the khata of Bhoju was acquired for construction of canal. Thus total area of land of Bhoju remained as 9 -7 -0 bigha. Area of 2 -3 -0 bigha land was increased in the khata of the petitioners from 1380 F -1382 F without any basis. In khata 96 of basic consolidation year, which was recorded in the name of Bhoju an area of 11 -13 -0 bigha was recorded and in the name of Sukkal an area of 2 -17 -0 bigha was recorded. 2 -3 -0 bigha land which is excess land of Bhoju belonged to Sukkal. The petitioners could not show as to how excess area came to be recorded in their khata. On these findings/the appeal was allowed and an area of 2 -3 -0 bigha land was directed to be recorded in the name of Sukkal from khata 96. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 41/103) against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 21.2.2006 allowed the revision and set -aside the order dated 27.1.2005 and maintained the order dated 26.12.2002.
(3.) SUKKAL filed a writ petition (registered as Writ B No. 19993 of 2006), which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 13.10.2011 and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.2.2006 was set aside and the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh. After remand, revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 31.10.2014 approved the findings of the appellate authority and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;