SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Laxmi Kant Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel and Sri Y. N. Yadav for the Gaon Sabha. Petitioner has challenged order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.9.2012 in revision No.196 under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. By this order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the revision on merits and confirmed the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.3.2008 as well as order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 26.2.2010. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
(2.) Facts of the case as transpires from the paper book and the arguments of the petitioner counsel are that the petitioner was allotted agricultural land by the land management committee which was approved on 15.1.1976 by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj. This fact is not disputed and has been admitted in the order by the Consolidation Officer. There is an interesting fact that allotment has been made in the name of Sita Ram son of Kallu at two serial No.47 and 80. The land which has been given to the petitioner in serial No.47 is 917/0-1-0, 927/0-3-0, 928/1-8-0, 974/1-0-0, total four numbers and area 2-7-0 and malguzari 15.48 on lease. This entry is not disputed by the opposite parties. However, there is another entry at serial No.80 again in the name of one Sita Ram son of Kallu of the same village on gata No. 111/1-12-0, 205/1-0-0 total 2 numbers measuring 2-12-0 malguzari 17.88 on lease. The Consolidation Officer has taken a view that in one register there cannot be two allotments to one person of the same village in the same name.
(3.) The petitioner in his defence before the Consolidation Officer has produced the Gram Pradhan of the village who has deposed in favour of the petitioner as well as the Registrar Kanoongo Sri Daya Ram, who has also deposed in favour of the petitioner and has testified the fact that the such patta was indeed given for approval from Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that he has taken possession only on the land mentioned in serial No.80 and has nothing to do with the land mentioned at serial No.47. Petitioner has applied for mutation but the same was rejected. The Consolidation Officer has rejected the pleading of the petitioner on the ground that the land mentioned in serial No.80 has already been re-allotted to other persons. Hence, it is not possible to mutate the name of the petitioner.;