Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the case has been taken up in the revised list no one has appeared on behalf of respondents nor any counter-affidavit has been filed.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot No. 247/2M (new No. 127) which was recorded in the name of the petitioner. During the consolidation operation an objection was filed by Gaon Sabha to expunge the name of the petitioner and to record the name of Gaon Sabha on the ground that in a suit filed under sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the plot in dispute has been declared to be Gaon Sabha property vide judgment and order dated 28.3.1968. The objection was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the said decree was challenged in appeal and the proceedings were abated due to consolidation. It was also pleaded that plot in dispute was settled in his favour by the erstwhile Zamindar prior to enforcement of the Zamindari Abolition Act and since then he was in cultivatory possession of the same. It was also pleaded that Gaon Sabha had initiated proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules which was dismissed on 16.11.1966. In support of his case the petitioner filed receipts of revenue paid to the Zamindar between 1356 to 1359 Fasli.
(3.) The proceedings initated against the petitioner under Rule 115-C of the Rules were dropped on the ground that land in dispute was settled with him by the Zamindar and he was in possession since then and was paying land revenue to the Zamindar. All the three Consolidation Courts ignoring the aforesaid fact allowed the claim of Gaon Sabha on the oasis of decree passed in suit under section 229-B, without taking into account the fact that said proceedings were abated because of consolidation operation. On abatement of the proceedings the decree passed therein also stood abated and was not in existence. All the three Consolidation Courts have committed gross illegality in placing reliance upon a decree which was nonexistent. On the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the settlement made in his favour by the Zamindar and thus entitled to become Sirdar.;