Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Wasim Alam, for the petitioners and Sri Madhur Prakash, for respondents and Sri Shamim Ahmad for caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2014, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute relates to double entries of the area of plot 654 of village Buzurga, pargana Sadiabad, district Ghazipur. Total area of various subplots of plot 654 were recorded as 63 -13 -4 bigha, in previous settlement records of the year 1880 -F, 1356 -F. In basic consolidation records, various sub -plots of plot 654 were recorded in khatas 7, 10, 40, 48, 61, 68, 69, 160, 164, 176, 250, 265, 266, 266 -Aa and 266 -Ba, in the names of different person. During field to field partial, total area of sub -plots of plot 654 was found as 63 -13 -4 bigha on the spot but while preparing CH Form -4, it was noticed by the subordinate consolidation authorities that total area of various sub -plots of plot 654, which were recorded in aforementioned basic consolidation year khatas, became 80 -3 -10 bigha. Thus an excess area of 16 -10 -6 bigha of plot 654 was noticed. Therefore, dispute was referred to Consolidation Officer to decide as to in which khata, forged/double entry of sub -plots of plot 654 were recorded, so that area of plot 654 be corrected. The present writ petition is confined to entry of area of subplot of plot 654 as it was recorded in basic consolidation year khata 164, in the names of predecessors of the contesting respondents and khata 250 in the names of predecessors of the petitioners. For remaining khata, the matter is still pending before Settlement Officer Consolidation, it will be open to him to decide, the matter on merit. The Consolidation Officer, after registering the case, issued notices to all the tenure holders of the aforementioned khatas. They appeared before Consolidation Officer and adduced their evidence to prove that sub -plots of plot 654 was correctly recorded, in their khatas. The Consolidation Officer also summoned original khatauni from record room of the year 1356 -F, 1359 -F and 1362 F. On the basis of entries made, in khatauni 1356 -F, 1359 -F and 1362 -F, the Consolidator/Consolidation Officer prepared a chart of the various khatas in which sub -plots of plot 654 were recorded. Total area of various sub -plots of plot 654 as recorded in last settlement record of 1359 -F came to about 72 bigha. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties, by order dated 6.1.1977 found that entry of basic consolidation year khata 160 (consisting plot 654/2 area 2 -9 -12 bigha), khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5 -16 -10 bigha), khata 266 (consisting plot 654/3 area 3 -16 -14 bigha) and khata 344 (consisting plot 654/4 area 0 -13 -0 bigha) (total area 12 -15 -16 bigha) were forged entry. Remaining excess area of plot 654 was directed to be reduced proportionately from remaining khatas.
(3.) VARIOUS appeals were filed from the aforesaid order. Ram Nagina son of Baldeo (khata 176), who had not contested the matter before Consolidation Officer, also filed an appeal for recording his name over an area of 5 -0 -0 bigha of plot 654 in his name. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 05.06.1992 allowed the appeal of Ram Nagina and dismissed the other appeals due to which an area of 5 -0 -0 bigha of plot 654 was again enhanced than its total area as determined by Consolidation Officer. Riyaz Ahmad and others (now represented by respondents -4 to 12), Doodh Nath, Surya Nath and Ka -haiya filed their separate revisions against the aforesaid orders. All the four revisions were consolidated by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 21.1.1994 held that by the order of Consolidation Officer total area of various sub -plots of plot 654 had come to 61 -13 -5 bigha. Settlement Officer Consolidation further enhanced its area to 5 -0 -0 bigha due to which its total area has become 66 -13 -5 bigha although settlement area of 63 -13 -4 bigha. As such he allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer 6.1.1977 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.6.1992 and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute as to which khata is forged afresh.;