Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S. C. Verma, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri J. A. Azami appearing for contesting respondents.
(2.) DISPUTE relates to plot No. 78 area 4.045 acres, plot No. 68 area 0.145 acres and plot No. 2 area 1.500 acres (old No. 74/4, 86/1 and 27/1 respectively) situate in Village Achalbhiti, Pargana Nizamabad, district Azamgarh. Facts as they emerge out from the pleadings of the parties are that during the first consolidation operation, an objection under Section 8 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') was filed by petitioner and his real brother Nepu claiming that they were in possession ' over the disputed plots much before the date of vesting and the same are wrongly recorded in Khata of Gaon Sabha and they are entitled to be recorded as 'sirdar' of land in dispute. During the pendency of the proceedings, Nepu, brother of petitioner, gave his consent before the Consolidation Officer for his share to be recorded in the name of petitioner, as he was issueless. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.4.1956 allowed the objection and declared the petitioner to be 'sirdar' of land in dispute. It is alleged that in pursuance of said order the name of petitioner could not be entered in the record due to mistake of the authorities and as such he was forced to file suit under Section 229B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for declaration of his rights. The said suit was registered as Suit No. 333 and after contest by State and Gaon Sabha it was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1978 on the ground that petitioner was already declared as 'sirdar' in the earlier consolidation proceedings and said Judgment had become final. Said decree was not challenged either by Gaon Sabha or by State and the same became final between the parties. In pursuance to said decree the name of petitioner came to be recorded in the revenue records. On 27.8.1982, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 3 alongwith some other villagers before District Magistrate, Azamgarh alleging that the entry of the name of petitioner in revenue records is forged and fabricated. An Inquiry was conducted into the matter by Naib Tahsildar who after recording the statement of Tirath Raj Pandey who was lekhpal at the relevant time and one Ram Badan Lal lekhpal, found that the name of petitioner was recorded in pursuance to judgment dated 20.11.1978 and certain 'amaldaramad' made in favour of some other persons were found to be illegal and forged and a recommendation was made for cancellation of the same. Thereafter, petitioner moved application dated 6.2.1992 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh alleging that though 'amaldaramad' of Judgment dated 20.11.1978 was made in the basic year khatauni but the same could not be incorporated in other consolidation records as such entries in the consolidation records may be corrected. Deputy Director of Consolidation/respondent No. 1 directed Consolidation Officer to take necessary action in the matter. Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 15.2.1992 directing the Assistant Consolidation Officer to submit a report. In pursuance to aforesaid order, consolidator submitted report dated 2.4.1992 to the effect that 'amaldaramad' of order dated 20.1 1.1978 passed in Case No. 333 under Section 229B was made in the basic year khatauni but the same could not be incorporated in C.H. Forms 11 and 23 prepared during consolidation operation and he accordingly prepared amended charts and forwarded it to the Consolidation Officer who in his turn forwarded the same, to Settlement Officer Consolidation. No objection whatsoever of any kind was filed either by Gaon Sabha or by any other person to the aforesaid report. On 6.4.1992 Settlement Officer Consolidation approved the report and amended chart and in pursuance thereof the name of petitioner came to be recorded in revenue records on 19.9.1992. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed a time barred revision challenging orders dated 6.4.1992 and 19.9.1992. Proceedings were contested by petitioner and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 13.9.2000 allowed the revision and set aside both orders dated 6.4.1992 and 19.9.1992. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for petitioner that the name of petitioner was liable to be recorded in pursuance to Judgment and decree dated 20.11.1978 passed by revenue court, which had become final between the parties. It has further been urged that a detail inquiry with regard to allegation that the same is forged and fabricated, was conducted and wherein it was found that the name of petitioner was rightly recorded in revenue records on the basis of said decree. It has further been contended that consolidation authorities are bound by Judgment of revenue courts and hence under an obligation to make necessary correction in consolidation records and the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation directing the petitioner to get his rights declared by filing an objection under Section 9A of the Act, is patently illegal and without Jurisdiction.;