Dev Kant Trivedi, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16 -3 -1982 passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh in Revision No. 4684/1206 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and has sought for the relief of certiorari quashing the same. The case of the petitioner is that he was recorded as an Asami on 1 bigha and 6 biswa land of plot No. 1293/2 and was using the same for agricultural purposes after having taken the patta of the same from Gaon Sabha Pavasi, Pargana Dhigwas Tahsil Kunda distt. Pratapgarh. In consolidation operation, by means of the order dated 2 -9 -1977, the Consolidation Officer held that the petitioner was the Asami of 1 bigha and 6 biswa land of plot No. 1293/2 and simultaneously rejected the objections filed by Vasudev and others. The Gaon Sabha and the State, of U.P. were parties in the proceedings of Case No. 12702 under Section 9ka(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the opposite party No. 2 Uma Shanker against the order dated 2 -9 -1977. The said Appeal No. 1107 under Section 11(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Pratapgarh, by means of his order dated 14 -11 -1980. A revision was preferred by the opposite party No. 2. This Revision No. 4684/1206 was allowed on 16 -3 -1982 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, district Pratapgarh. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that a patta was granted by the Gaon Sabha on the basis thereof he was continuing in possession of the land in dispute. The said patta was executed on 9 -4 -1963. It was renewed by means of a resolution dated 11 -1 -1977. Earlier the petitioner's name was mutated by means of an order dated 22 -4 -1965 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer (SDO), Kunda, district Pratapgarh in Case No. 2829/2473/2055/78. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that the disputed land is talab and is recorded as such, in the C.H. Form -2A and so also in khatauni of third settlement. According to the respondent No. 2, he is entitled to use the talab in dispute for irrigating his land and, therefore, the land in dispute could not have been recorded in the name of the petitioner.
(3.) BOTH the parties have advanced the arguments in support of their respective contentions. It is evident from the order dated 22 -4 -1965 passed by the SDO, Kunda, district Pratapgarh that a plot No. 1293/2 was given on lease by the Gaon Sabha to the petitioner. The mutation order was also passed in his favour. Subsequently, again a resolution was passed on 11 -1 -1977 by the Gaon Sabha giving the land in dispute on patta to the petitioner. The order dated 2 -9 -1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer was thus, in accordance with provisions of law and, there seems to be no fault whatsoever in the said order.;