S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition petitioners have challenged the judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 19.4.1988 and 16.6.1982.
(2.) For,disposal of writ petition the facts in brief will suffice Land in dispute was recorded in the basic year records in the name of Gopal son of Bal Mukund who was father of petitioners. Objection was filed by the respondent side on the ground that the entry of the petitioners side is wrong as from before zamindari abolition, the land in dispute was of their mohal and it was grove and is still grove and they are in possession. The land was recorded in their name over which Gopal got his name recorded in collusion with Lekhpal to which they could not get any knowledge. Gopal filed written statement for protecting his entry/right on the grounds that before zamindari abolition the land in dispute might have been the grove but since long it is not in such condition and he having come in possession which is clear from the entry in his favour and having not been evicted within a period of three years as provided in law became Sirdar. Consolidation Officer maintained the entry in favour of the petitioners and objection of the opposite party was rejected. Appeals were filed by the respondent side which was allowed and the basic year entry was directed to be expunged upon which petitioners filed revision which was dismissed and thus to challenge the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Courts below have wrongly discarded the order of the Sub Divisional Officer by which name of the petitioners' father was directed to be recorded and they have also wrongly discarded continuance of revenue entry in favour of the petitioner side. Submission is that they have also wrongly discarded the entry of Z A Form 101 and 110. Consolidation Officer found that there is no grove on the spot and the rights of the opposite parties, if any, stood extinguished. The Consolidation Officer further found that in 1359 Fasli Gopal was entered in possession and in 1366-67 Fasli name of Gopal came in C.L.R.D. proceedings on account of preparation of Form ZA 101. It is submitted that the appellate authority and the revisional Court has not taken into account facts correctly and the evidence in support of the petitioner's claim and thus they have wrongly negatived the petitioners right. It is on these premises submission is that judgment of two Courts needs interference.;