S.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda.
(2.) THE facts in brief to the present dispute are that Khata No.143 situated in Village Manihari, Pargana Gwarich, Tehsil Karnailganj, District Gonda was recorded in the name of Raj Kishore Singh, father of opposite parties no.2 and 3 in 1362 fasli as sirdar. Under the Correction of Land Records Drive Scheme ( hereinafter referred as to as the 'CLRD Scheme' for short), name of Balbhaddar Singh, real uncle of the petitioner was recorded as co-tenant vide order dated 11.6.1955 passed by the Additional Tehsildar and the said entry continued upto the basic year and after the death of Balbhaddar Singh name of the petitioner came to be recorded on the basis of succession. After the commencement of the consolidation operation in the village in the year 1974 objections were filed by the father of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter refereed to as the 'Act') on the ground that name of the petitioner has been fictitiously recorded without any order of the competent authority. The petitioner was neither in possession nor had any share, hence his name may be expunged from the khata. The objections were contested by the petitioner and it was stated that name of Balbhaddar Singh was recorded under the CLRD Scheme and after his death he came into possession over the land in dispute. The long standing entries cannot be corrected and it was pleaded that the petitioner has perfected right by acquiescence and estopple and the objections filed after 19 years by Raj Kishore Singh were liable to be rejected. The parties adduced evidence in support of their claim. The Consolidation Officer on a consideration of the entire evidence rejected the objections by Raj Kishore Singh vide order dated 27.8.1977. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.1977 Raj Kishore Singh filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 19.11.1977 and the Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 3.12.1984. Against the aforesaid order, Raj Kishore Singh preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed by the Director of Consolidation vide order dated 6.3.2006. Hence this petition. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in continuous possession and, therefore, he perfected his title by way of adverse possession and Raj Kishore Singh took no steps to eject Balbhaddar Singh for a period of about 19 years and the entry continued as such. He further submits that the revision was filed without the copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer and, therefore, the revision was itself not maintainable. It is also submitted that no evidence has been discussed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision and so also he has erred in exercising power under Section 48 of the Act. It is further submitted that when the objection was rejected on technical ground, then it ought to have been taken at the initial stage as the same has not been raised, it cannot be raised here. The first objection having been rejected vide order dated 27.11.1974, the second objection was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 11-A of the Act. It is also submitted that subsequent objection filed was barred by the principles of res judicata and also by the principles enunciated in Section 11-A of the Act. The second objection, therefore, could not have been entertained by the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3, on the other hand, has submitted that objection was rejected on technical ground and there was no decision on merit, therefore, the principles of res judicata will not apply unless and until there was any decision on merit. It is also submitted that bar of Section 11-A of the Act will not apply in the present case as there was no decision on merit. It is further submitted that name of Balbhaddar Singh could not have been recorded in the CLRD Scheme as it was only the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was empowered as provided under Para 155-A of the U.P. Land Records Manual to make any correction in the Khatauni. The co-tenancy could not have been allowed under the CLRD Scheme. The CLRD Scheme was only for the purposes that if any person was in possession and his name has not been recorded, then the name of the person who was in possession may be recorded. It is also submitted that prior to the date of abolition of the zamindari name of the father of Raj Kishore Singh was entered in the khatauni in 1345 fasli. Raj Kishore Singh also filed receipts of the revenue rent, which also proved that he was in possession and he continued to pay the rent as well. He has further submitted that another dispute in respect of khata has been decided, but not the present one. It is further contended that the order passed under the CLRD Scheme does not contain the signature of any officer to prove the authenticity of the order.;