Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Siddharth Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri Prakash Chandra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 Gaon Sabha.
(2.) Facts giving to the dispute are as under; Dispute relates to plots No. 351 and 700 situate in village Radepur, Pargana Belhabans, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh. In the basic years said two plots were recorded as 'pokhri'. An objection under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the 'Act') was filed by petitioner challenging basic year entry. Said objection was registered as Case No. 16456. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.8.1967 allowed the objection and directed the name of petitioner to be recorded over said two plots as 'sirdar'. The aforesaid order of Consolidation Officer became final and was duly recorded in the consolidation records and accordingly C.H. Form 23, 41 and 45 were prepared. After finalization of consolidation, notification under section 52 of the Act was issued on 7.6.1980. After about 13 years of the order passed by Consolidation Officer, an application dated 19.6.1980 was moved by the then Pradhan of Gaon Sabha before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48(3) of the Act to expunge the name of petitioner from the disputed land. On the said application a report was called for. Consolidation Lekhpal submitted a report dated 14.7.1980 to the effect that the name of petitioner was recorded in accordance with the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 20.8.1967 in case No. 16456 under section 9-A(2) of the Act. Petitioner had no notice or knowledge of the proceedings and when the matter was pending before Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation he came to know of the same and filed a preliminary objection dated 26.9.1980 to the effect that consolidation operation has come to an end and the village has been notified under section 52 of the Act, as such consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to proceed to make a reference. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation forwarded the reference to Deputy Director of Consolidation along with his report dated 13.10.1980. Again petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities after denotification of the village under section 52 of the Act. Thereafter, an application dated 11.12.1981 was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha with a prayer to drop the present proceedings on the ground that the name of petitioner was recorded on the basis of the order passed by Consolidation Officer and since there was no resolution passed by Gaon Sabha to file application as such the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Aforesaid application filed by Gaon Sabba was countered by District Government Counsel Revenue by moving application dated 11.12.1981 on the ground that the name of petitioner has fraudulently been recorded and the Gaon Sabha has moved an application to drop the proceeding without permission of the S.D.O. as such the same may be dismissed. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 15.11.1981 approved the reference and directed the name of petitioner to be expunged and maintained basic year entry of 'pokhari'. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for petitioner that the proceedings initiated on an application moved by Gaon Sabha after de-notification of the village under section 52 of the Act were not maintainable and the impugned order is patently without jurisdiction. It has further been urged that once Gaon Sabha moved an application to drop the proceeding on the ground that the same was filed without any resolution of Gaon Sabha, Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly proceeded to decide the reference proceedings on an objection raised by District Government Counsel Revenue for which he had no authority or jurisdiction. It has next been contended that even without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and without even recording any finding that the order dated 20.8.1967 passed by Consolidation Officer on the objection filed petitioner was forged, fabricated or fictitious, his name has been directed to be expunged. My attention has been drawn to the fact- that civil suit for injunction filed by Gaon Sabha was also dismissed.;