- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Apruva Hajela, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10. 2. 2005, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, deciding issue No. 2 in suit No. 20 of 2003-04 against the petitioner and the order dated 28. 8. 2006, by which revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the revisional Court as well. as the order dated 11. 1. 2008 by which the review application has been rejected by the revisional Court. The brief facts necessary for deciding this writ petition are that a suit being suit No. 20 of 2003-04 was filed by the respondent No. 4 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act claiming declaration that he be treated as co-tenure holder of plot No. 635 area 1. 133 hectares (old No. 728 area 2. 45 acres) and his name be also recorded as Bhumidhar in revenue record. The plaintiff's case was that plot No. 635 was purchased by plaintiff Saru son of Matadin alongwith Amar Singh son of Dhanu (petitioner) from one Dambha son of Hari Kishun through registered sale-deed dated 17. 3. 1969 in pursuance of which both plaintiff and defendant came into possession. The plaintiff further pleaded that the names of both the parties were mutated but the defendant Amar Singh got the name of plaintiff deleted by practising fraud upon the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case further was that defendant No. 1 Amar Singh was looking after the cases and the plaintiff, who is Gaderiya lived in forest looking after his goats, Plaintiff further pleaded that he could not know about the fraud played by the defendants nor he could know about the consolidation proceedings. The defendant filed writ ten statement denying the case of the plaintiff. He denied that the land was purchased through sale-deed. He further stated that his name was continuing before consolidation proceedings. The plea was taken that the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The trial Court framed several issues and one of the issues was as to whether the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The trial Court de cided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit was not barred. The trial Court held that the land in suit was purchased by both, the plaintiff and defendants and no proceedings were taken in the consolidation hence, the suit was not barred. The revision filed by the defendant was also dismissed. The revisional Court found that the suit land was purchased both by the plaintiff and defendant and defendant by playing fraud got the name of the plaintiff removed from the revenue records in such case, the bar of Section 49 would not apply. The review application was also rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders, con tends that the bar of section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is fully attracted in the facts of the present case as the plaintiff has not taken any proceedings in consolidation proceedings. The reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey and others, 1990 R. D. 439 and in the case of Zafar Khan and others v. Board of Revenue, U. P. and others, 1984 R. D. 328 and the judgment of this Court in the cases of Ram Sanehi Lal v. Board of Revenue, 1974 R. D. 241, Asha Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P. 1992 RJ 354; Smt Hasiniya Begum v. Smt. Phool Bi and others, RJ 1982 271; Dina Nath Verma and others v. Gokaran and others, 2003 (5) ALR 411.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further contends that both the Courts below have committed error in overruling the objection of the petitioner that suit is barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the peti tioner and have perused the record.;