- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-3-1974 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ).
(2.) PROCEEDINGS are under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. C. H. Act in which claim of parties about their respective title has been decided. To dispose of the writ petition, brief summary of the facts will suffice. Petitioners who are four in number claims to be recorded over four sets of plots which can be noticed in sequence, i. e. petitioner No. 1 over plots Nos. 276, 277, 335, 336 petitioner No. 2 over plots Nos. 20/1, 6/2, petitioner No. 3 over plots Nos. 64, 256, 317/1 and petitioner No. 4 over plot No. 284. Respondents filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming rights on the basis of possession. It was stated in the objection that before zamindari abolition, they were khudkasht holder of land and thereafter they continued in possession but Ram Narain got his name incorrectly recorded. Taking advantage thereof, he transferred the land by two registered sale deeds in favour of petitioners. The rights on the basis of adverse possession was also claimed in the alternative. The claim of respondent was contested by petitioners on the ground that Basudeo was hereditary tenant over plot Nos. 276, 277, 335 and 336 before date of vesting and became sirdar on the date of vesting and on his death, his son Ram Narain remained in possession and thereafter he deposited ten times of land revenue and after obtaining sanad, by means of registered sale deed dated 19-4-1968, the land was transferred. The mutation of petitioner No. 1 was also allowed upon which, respondents filed suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act against the petitioner No. 1 and Rajendra son of Ram Narain referred above, but the suit was dismissed by trial Court and on its appeal, the suit stood abated under the provisions of U. P. C. H. Act. In respect to plot Nos. 20/1 and 6/2, it was submitted that petitioner No. 2 was hereditary tenant before date of vesting upon which he became sirdar after date of vesting and has been coming down in continuous possession. Similarly, in respect to plot Nos. 256, 64 and 317/1, claim was that petitioner No. 3 was hereditary tenant. In respect to plot No. 284, claim was that grand father of petitioner No. 4 namely Soman was hereditary tenant and after date of vesting and after his death, petitioner No. 4 continued in possession. It was further pleaded that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are illiterate and grandfather of petitioner No. 4 was also illiterate and therefore, respondents by filing a suit in respect to plot Nos. 64, 256, 317/1 and 201 and 6/2 against petitioner Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, got an ex parte decree and thereafter on the basis of compromise got the matter decided although petitioners had no knowledge and they never engaged any Counsel nor did they enter into compromise. Parties in support of respective cases adduced oral and documentary evidence. Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of respondents and thereafter they filed appeal, which was also dismissed by Appellate Court but on filing revision, respondents succeeded and thus the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-3-1974 is under challenge. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that reasoning and findings given by two Courts below have not been met and reversed by the Revisional Court and therefore, judgment is liable to been quashed on this ground alone. Submission is that dakhalnama relied upon in respect to plot No. 284 obtained in Suit No. 1889 of 1949 is against Bhaggu and Soman is not party in that suit. In respect to plots Nos. 64, 256, 317/1, 20/1 and 6/2 is concerned, it is said that the alleged suit filed by respondents was-decreed on the basis of compromise although petitioners have not entered into compromise and they never engaged any Counsel. Neither any notice was issued, nor there is any service on them. Sirajuddin Khan-Vakil who is said to have been examined to prove the compromises decree, clearly stated that he cannot recognize the petitioner No. 2. Submission is that from the side of respondents, only statement of respondent No. 1 was given whereas, from the side of petitioners, Parag, Mangal and Sukhraj besides Record Keeper have been examined, but the Revisional Court without taking note of this crucial evidence has allowed the revision. It is further submitted that entry in favour of respondents of few years has been found to be not in accordance with law as no P. A.-10 etc. was issued but the Revisional Court by ignoring this aspect and by recording perverse finding, has illegally repelled the petitioners' submission. Submission is that approach of Revisional Court and burden to prove certain aspects as noticed by Revisional Court in its judgment, is perverse and therefore, the matter needs fresh hearing on merits.
(3.) IN response to the aforesaid, learned Counsel for respondents submits that decree in respect to two sets of plots of the years 1953 is said to be ex parte at first instance but thereafter as restoration was filed and again the matter was decided on the basis of compromise, the contention of petitioners that they were not aware about the decree and no notice/summon was issued or served cannot be accepted. Submission is that approach of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation about non implementation of decree and no steps to take possession is totally misconceived as in the decree itself, there is a mention that possession has been appropriately given and therefore, there was no occasion of taking any dakhal. Argument is that merely for the reason that entries were not corrected in the light of decree and thereafter in the light of mutation order, the effect of decree and benefits which are to accrue to the respondents cannot be taken away. IN respect to plot No. 276 etc. submission is that in 1356 Fasli, the land was shown to be Seer of Mangal, thereafter name of Ram Narain came, thus there is no explanation that how name of Mangal was omitted, and therefore rights of petitioners on the basis of transfer can be accepted. IN respect to plot No. 285, submission is that petitioner No. 4 has not connected himself with Soman in any manner who was initially recorded and as Soman was found to be farar, respondents have been rightly given rights on the basis of possession. Submission is that entries of possession in favour of respondents have been rightly believed and the decree passed in favour of respondents has been rightly relied upon to bar the claim of petitioners. Submission is that the finding so recorded by the Revisional Court being finding of fact, there being no perversity in it, this Court is not to interfere. In view of aforesaid submission, this Court has examined the matter.;