Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri V.P. Varshnney Counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.N. Verma holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh Counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Sri V.P. Varshney submits that objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer. The case of the petitioner was that Sirdari patta was granted to the petitioner way back in the year 1960 and the petitioner are therefore recorded as Sirdar. The objections were contested by the Gaon Sabha. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of the petitioner by the order dated 1.2.1972. The petitioner filed appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the order dated 11.2.1972. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation found, that the pattas were alleged to have been executed by the Pradhan and were dated 11.8.1966 but the Supervisor Kanoongo has not given any date below his signatures when he attested these pattas; the attestation was not proper as it was not done within four months of the execution of the deed; the register of agreement was also not produced to prove the entries of attestation; the Pradhan did not make his statement with records of the Panchayat, proceedings book etc. It was not proved that proper resolution was passed and pattas were executed observing all formalities; the registers of agreement with the Supervisor Kanoongo was also necessary which the appellants have avoided. It was held that no rights can be given on the basis of these pattas whose genuineness has not been proved and that if the pattas were genuine, the Supervisor Kanoongo could himself get the amaldaramad made. It was found that after execution of the pattas the appellants never tried to get the amaldaramad made if not done by Supervisor Kanoongo and that no rights could be given on the basis of these pattas. The petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision vide order dated 16.6.1972. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the patta were invalid. He found that the land had been allotted to the members of one family from which it appeared that the eligibility list was not prepared in accordance with the order of preference given under section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act. It has also been found on the basis of the statement of Kishori Singh, Pradhan that the land was not vacant land. It was in possession of the revisionists.
(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that the right of cancellation of patta vests only in the Collector and not in the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The validity of the patta it is submitted can be examined only by the Collector. The contention appears to have force. No finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the patta relied upon by the petitioner was a forged one. A Full Bench of this Court in Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, 1977 (3) ALR 334 , has held that the consolidation officer has no jurisdictions to adjudicate upon the validity of the lease of allotment. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation no doubt has held that the patta was not proved to be a genuine one. Such a finding was recorded by the Consolidation Officer but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the revision on a different point. He found the patta to be invalid and not forged or non-existent. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained in view of the Full Bench (supra). In the facts and circumstances, the proper course is to set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and to remand the matter to him for fresh consideration of the question as to whether the patta relied upon by the petitioners was a genuine one or forged. If the Deputy Director of Consolidation finds that no patta was executed, it is certainly open to him to affirm the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.;