S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, dismissing his revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereunder the order passed by the appellate authority setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, and directing for maintaining the basic year entry rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner claiming to have mature tenurial rights in the land in dispute on the basis of the adverse possession, stood affirmed. The petitioner had filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act challenging the basic year entry standing in favour of the contesting respondents asserting that he had been continuing to be in adverse possession of the land in dispute for a long period and had acquired Sirdari rights in view of Section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
(3.) IT may be noticed that in the year 1963, the land in dispute stood recorded in the names of Ram Chander, Krishna Devi W/o Ram Kumar and Krishna Kumar alias Sadhole who was a minor, Ram Chander and Mst. Krishna Devi had entered into an agreement of sale of a half share in the land in dispute in favour of Manna Lai and another. Since the sale-deed had not been executed inspITe of agreement, Manna Lai and Dalla in whose favour the agreement had been entered into filed a suIT being suIT No. 161 of 1963 which was decreed by the trial court on 21.1.1965. inspITe of the decree, the sale-deed could not be executed on account of the pendency of first appeal and a second appeal in this Court which was ultimately dismissed on 4.1.1973. IT was thereafter that the sale-deed was executed by the trial court on 24.11.1978 and the possession pursuant to the decree was delivered to the vendee on 22.2.1979. The petITioner's name had been recorded for the first time in Zaman-9 in the year 1373 Fasali during the pendency of the appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation after careful consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish acquisition of any tenurial right as claimed. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation further found that the revenue entries in the revenue records relied upon by the petitioner were not in accordance with law and had been manipulated. These entries were discarded holding them to be fictitious and not representing the correct state of affairs. The oral evidence tendered by the petitioner was found to be unworthy of credit. On the aforesaid findings, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal and setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, directed for the continuance of the basic year entry rejecting the objections of the petitioner.;