- (1.) Heard Shri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition arises out of objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The dispute between the parties pertains to plot numbers 260/141, 268/147 of village Bhadi, District Muzaffarnagar.
(2.) The objection under Section 9-A (2) is filed by the petitioner on the strength of his being recorded under class 9 since 1365 fasli while the contesting respondent was entered in the main column as bhumidhar. The claim of the petitioner was therefore one of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer (the CO) by his order dated 23.11.1981 dismissed the objection and directed that the petitioner's possession recorded during the partal, be expunged and the entry in favour of the contesting respondents be maintained.
(3.) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the SOC) by his order dated 22.02.1982 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The consequential revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed and the order of the CO was maintained. Hence this writ petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the SOC has rightly decided in favour of the petitioner relying upon the settlement entry of 1965 fasli. The SOC also relied upon the admission of the witnesses of the contesting respondents, who had admitted the petitioner's possession over the land in dispute. This admission had wrongly been ignored by the CO. Elaborating further he has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) has reversed the appellate order only on the finding that the entry in the khasra was not made in accordance with law. The DDC had opined that the entries in the khatauni have greater evidentiary value as compared to the khasra entries and that the Registrar Kanoongo did not have jurisdiction to make entries of class-9 in the khatauni and he should have referred the matter to the Assistant Collector First Class, who alone was competent to make the entry. Notice under Section P-10 should have been issued to the tenure-holder and that adverse possession apart from the entries has not been proved.;