JUDGEMENT
Sudhir Narain, J. -
(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.4.1975.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot Nos. 635, 489 and 490 of Khata No. 198 and plot No. 636 of Khata No. 328. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of plot No. 636 area 0.91 on the allegation that they are grove land. The respondents-second set filed objection claiming that they are bhumidhars of the land in dispute and the land was acquired by Chaturi, predecessor of opposite party second set through Patta and the objectors are in possession over those plots from the time of Chaturi. The trees were planted by the objectors and their predecessors. The Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated 21.3.1973 rejected the objection of both the parties and maintained the basic year entry of Bhitta in respect of plot No. 636. He also expunged the basic year entry in favour of Deo Nandan petitioner's predecessor and directed to record plot No. 490 as Bhitta, 635 and 489 as Talab belonging to Gaon Sabha.
(3.) The petitioners and the respondent-second set both filed separate appeals against the order of Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, vide his order dated 31.8.1973 partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to be recorded sirdar in place of Deo Nandan over plot Nos. 489 and 490 of Khata No. 198. The claim of the petitioners and the respondent-second set in respect of plot Nos. 635 and 636 was rejected. Both the parties filed revision against the judgement of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation Respondent No. 1 allowed both the revisions, vide is order dated 19.4.1975. It was held that the plots in dispute belonged to the ancestors of both the parties. But there was a partition and on the basis of the said partition, plot Nos. 635, 489 and 490 went in the share of the petitioners and plot No. 636 of Khata No. 328 was given to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent second set.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.