POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.D. Kesari Advocate for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THE orders dated 6-2-1974, 18-6-1974 and 18-2-1975 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are impugned in the instant writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 concluded that an area 1 bigha, 14 biswa belong to the contesting respondents. The S.O.C. while confirming the order of the C.O. in appeal came to the conclusion that the entire area of the disputed plot No. 117 belongs to the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by all the three orders. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that when the consolidation operation came into effect, plot Nos. 117/1 and 117/2 were recorded in the name of the petitioner and his brother Munna as Bhumidhars in the basic year entries. The whereabouts of the petitioner's brother was not known since a very long time, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was that he was exclusive owner of the entire holding. The petitioner filed his objection for expunging the name of his brother Munna. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed their objections in respect of 1 bigha 14 biswa of plot No. 117/2. The claim of the contesting respondents was that they have perfected their claim as Sirdars on the basis of adverse possession. The petitioner objected to the claim of the contesting respondents on the basis of Bhumidhari Sanad dated 15- 9-1950 in respect of plot No. 117. A certified copy of Khasra No. 1356 Fasli was brought on record wherein the petitioner was recorded over plot No. 117/2 and also Khatauni pertaining to the said year was brought on record. The name of the contesting respondents were nowhere recorded. Besides in support the revenue entries of Khasra No. 1357 Fasli, Khasra No. 1358 Fasli and Khasra No. 1375 Fasli and 12 Sala Khatauni from 1372 to 1374 were brought on record. The entry in the name of respondent No. 5, Shiv, Talai and Nimar was objected being forged and fictitious entries. Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on certified copy of Khatauni for the period 1372 to 1374 Fasli. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6-2-1974 allowed the objection of the contesting respondents holding that the area 1 bigha 14 biswa of the disputed plot belong to them and 14 biswa 2 dhoor was of the petitioner. Two appeals were filed before the S.O.C. The appeal of the contesting respondents was allowed and claim of the petitioner was rejected, meaning thereby, the entire area of the disputed plot was held to belong to the contesting respondents. While coming to this conclusion, the S.O.C. remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision vide order dated 18-6-1974. This order was challenged by the petitioner in revision, which was dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 18-2-1975. The revisional Court however maintained the order of the Consolidation Officer to the limited extent that the area of 1.14 of the disputed plot was given to the contesting respondents. The revisional Court remanded the case for a fresh decision, so for the findings in respect of the extended area given by the S.O.C. to the contesting respondents was concerned.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed as many as 10 documents alongwith list and an application for permission for adducing the additional evidence. The application was allowed on payment of Rs. 10/- as cost on 30-9-1974. The contesting respondents were however allowed the right of rebuttal. It has been stated in paragraph 22 of the writ petition that the contesting respondents received Rs. 10/- towards cost and have made their endorsement in the order sheet. The emphasis is that one of the document which was filed alongwith list, was the certified copy of the compromise in proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. dated 13-9-1974. It is vehementally argued that the learned D.D.C. despite admitting the document at the revisional stage, failed to record any finding whatsoever on the said document. Admittedly, compromise was entered into in the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C., to the effect that the parties to the said proceedings accepted the claim of the petitioner that they are in lawful possession. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the orders passed by the respondent are illegal and manifestly erroneous, thus liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the case of Paras Nath and Ors. v. Wajiul Hasan and Ors., 1971 U.R.C. 615. It is argued that the D.D.C. has failed to discuss the oral evidence as well the documents brought on record at the revisional stage.;