Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The disputed land stood recorded in the basic year in the name of the Petitioner. Opposite party No. 6, a member of Gram Sabha of village Jane, preferred an objection Under Sec. 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the disputed land alleging that it belonged to the Gram Sabha and not to the Petitioner. The Petitioner contested the objection, among other grounds, on the basis that opposite party No. 6 was not entitled to maintain such an objection on behalf or for the benefit of the Gram Sabha. The Consolidation Officer rejected the stand of the Petitioner and held that the objection preferred by opposite party No. 6 was maintainable. The Petitioner then preferred an appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who disposed of the appeal upheld the contention of the Petitioner to the effect that the objection preferred by opposite party No. 6 in the circumstances enumerated above was not maintainable. Opposite party No. 6 then went in revision which was allowed by a Dy. Director who took the view that the objection was maintainable and accordingly directed the Consolidation Officer to proceed to decide the case on merits. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is instituted with a prayer that the impugned order passed by the Dy. Director, a certified copy of which is Annexure to the petition, be quashed.
(2.) The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 6.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The only point that calls for determination in the case is as to whether or not the objection preferred by opposite party No. 6 can, in the circumstances of the case already stated, be held to be maintainable. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 6 has drawn my attention to the language of Sec. 9(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which in effect purports to provide for the filing of an objection by a person interested in disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom. His argument is that having regard to the phraseology of Sec. 9(2), opposite party No. 6 must be held to be competent to maintain the objection which he had preferred not on behalf of the Gram Sabha but for disputing the correctness of the entry in favour of the Petitioner in so far as he being a member of the Gram Sabha cannot but be held to be a person interested in disputing the entries if he finds that the entry in the name of the Petitioner is incorrect and the property really belongs to the Gram Sabha, It is conceded by him that opposite party No. 6 merely by virtue of his being a member of the Gram Sabha is not entitled to initiate or continue a legal proceeding on behalf of the Gram Sabha. He maintains that the objection, which was preferred in the instant case by opposite party No. 6 was not preferred on behalf of the Gram Sabha by him but in his individual capacity as a person interested in the matter by virtue of his being a member of the Gram Sabha. He thus claims that the objection was, having regard to the language of Sec. 9(2), clearly maintainable. It is this approach which has found favour with the Dy. Director.;