Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) Both these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law, hence they are decided together.
(2.) Heard Sri S. Pratap Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3. Sri Anuj Kumar has accepted notice on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Jigina.
(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Basti passed on 29.8.09 by which the petitioner's revision was dismissed affirming the order passed by the SOC Basti on 12.8.08. The petitioner has come up with a case that his ancestors had been cultivating the land in dispute on the basis of grant given by the erstwhilel Zamindar. After the abolition of Zamindar under section 18 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act, they became owners of the land. They were unaware of the fact that the said land was recorded as Banjar land when the consolidation proceedings were initiated, CH form 5A was distributed . However without filing objection under section 9 A of C.H.Act and the consolidation officer on 30.3.69 passed an order recognising the rights of the petitioners . After election in the village, objections were raised regarding status of the petitioners viz-a-viz the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat had initiated proceedings against the petitioner by filing appeals before the SOC Basti. The SOC Basti had allowed the appeals of Gram Panchayat. It has ordered for deleting the names of petitioners from the revenue records declared to be Banjar and Talab of the village. Further orders were passed for lodging the F.I.R. against the Gram Pradhan and DGC (Revenue) Basti. This order was challenged by filing a revision which was also dismissed on 29.8.09. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress that the order of consolidation officer was not forged. It was genuine and bona fide. No enquiry was conducted by the SOC and DDC regarding genuineness and bona fide of the order passed by the C.O. On 30.3.69. The findings were based on surmises and conjectures.;