K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) IN the present writ petition the dispute relates to grove plot No. 6B area 2 biogas, situate in village Ghatampur, Pargana Pashchi -marath Tahsil Bikapur, District Faizabad. It was recorded in the basic year khatauni in the name of Petitioner Sant Bux Singh son of Para Singh along with Ghirau son of Jagesar Pasi and Ram Pher son of Matai. The Petitioner filed an objection asserting that he is the sole grove -holder and in possession over the grove in dispute and that the names of Ram Pher and Ghirau are wrongly recorded and the same be expunged. The case was contested by Ram Pher and Ghirau, who asserted that they are co -grove holders/Bhumidhars along with the Petitioner. Certain other claimants, namely Nand Lai father of opposite parties No. 7 to 9 and Ors. Opposite parties No. 10 to 18, filed objection claiming to be co -grove holders along with Ghirau. The claim of Nand Lal and others was also contested by the Petitioner Sant Bux Singh and he asserted that he is the sole grove -holder/Bhumidhar of the grove in dispute.
(2.) AFTER taking evidence of the parties, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.07.1967, Annexure No. 1, upheld the claim of the Petitioner and held him to be sole grove holder/Bhumidhar. He, however, ordered that the area of plot No. 6 -B be recorded as 1 bight 8 bitwise instead of 2 bights as was found on the spot. Both the parties filed appeal. The Petitioner claimed that the area of the aforesaid grove plot be not reduced while the opposite parties claimed that they be recorded as co -grove holders/ Bhumidhars of the grove in dispute along with the Petitioner. Both the appeals were heard and dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was maintained. Against that order revisions were filed which were allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 22.05.1970 and the case was remanded back to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the case afresh. This order has been annexed as Annexure C2 to the Counter affidavit which indicates that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation to look into the case of the parties and the evidence on record and decide it afresh on merits. After remand of the case the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 28.10.1972 dismissed the appeals filed by the Petitioner as well as by the opposite parties and he maintained order dated 27.07.1967 passed by the Consolidation Officer by giving detailed order considering the claim of the parties and evidence on record. Against this order the opposite parties preferred revisions, which were heard and allowed by the Joint Director of Consolidation vide order 29.04.1978. He held opposite parties No. 3 to 18 to be co -grove holders/Bhumidhars of the grove in dispute along with the Petitioner. This order has been challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Hargur Charan urged that plot No. 6B in grove Malikan and it was recorded as such in the revenue records upto 1344 Fasli. In the year 1345 Fasli, the names of Ram Pher and Ghirau were also added as co -grove holders along with the Petitioner Sant Bux Singh. Learned Counsel urged that the entry in the III Settlement Record of the year 1345 Fasli was wrongly made as Ram Pher and Ghirau were neither Zamindars in the Mohal nor they had held any proprietary interest in the grove land in dispute. It was further urged that Ram Pher and Ghirau are Pasi by caste and are not to the members of the Petitioner's family, who is Thakur by caste. Therefore, there is no question of their being co -grove -holders along with the Petitioner in a proprietary grove in question. Petitioner Sant Bux Singh was proprietor of the Mohal wherein the proprietary grove is situate and it was also recorded prior to 1345 Fasli as proprietary grove of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel further contended that the Joint Director of Consolidation has granted co -grove holders rights to the said persons merely on the basis of the aforesaid entry of 1345 Fasli, which was wrongly made and stands rebutted and shown to be wrongly made. It was contended by the learned Counsel that the entries in the revenue records no doubt carried with them the presumption of correctness but the same were reputable and could be shown to be erroneous and wrongly made. In support of his contention learned Counsel has cited a number of decisions of the Board of Revenue, High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the revenue record entries and also the settlement entries are reputable and could be shown to be wrong and unreliable.
(3.) IN reply learned Counsel for the opposite parties urged that although this grove was recorded as Bagh Malikan prior to 1345 Fasli, but the names of Ram Pher and Ghirau were recorded in the Settlement record of 1345 Fasli. He urged that the entry in the name of these persons is continuing ever since then and no objection was raised by the Petitioner while the Settlement Records were prepared nor he filed any objection for correction of the entries disputing the title of the said persons. Learned Counsel urged that the long standing entries would carry presumption of accuracy and cannot be brushed aside. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that in the Khasra of 1301 Fasli, although in the column of proprietors name of Nagesar Singh is mentioned, but in the remarks column Jageshar, who according to the opposite parties was the predecessor of the opposite parties, was recorded to be in possession over 7 Mango, 1 Bargad, 1 Mahua and 2 Jamun trees while on 17 mango trees, one Salig Tewari was recorded to be in possession and on certain trees names of some other persons are recorded. Referring to these entries learned Counsel urged that said entries of 1301 Fasli go to show that Jageshar, predecessor of the opposite parties, was in possession over certain trees situate on this plot. He was, thus, rightly recorded as co -grove holder along with the Petitioner in 1345 Fasli and this entry continues over since then. It was also contended by learned Counsel that since Petitioner Sant Bux Singh had not challenged the right, title and the recorded interest of the opposite parties ever since 1345 Fasli, and, as such, he is stopped from challenging the grove holder rights of opposite parties in the present proceedings and they are, therefore, deemed to have acquired co -grove holders right by acquiescence and estoppels. Learned Counsel, thus, contended that Ram Pher and Ghirau were recorded as co - grove holder at the preparation and attestation of records during Settlement in the year 1345 Fasli and, therefore, they will be presumed to have been recognized as co -grove holders by the Petitioner Sant Bux Singh, who was the proprietor of the grove land in suit. He, therefore, cannot deny the title of the opposite parties.;