Rajes Kumar - (1.) HEARD Sri M. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) BY means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 15.1.2005, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur by which the revisions filed by the petitioners have been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed that they are purchaser of Plot No. 48 situated at village Bardiya from Sri Gokul Prasad. It appears that an agreement has been entered into between Gokul Prasad, Rajendra, Markadey and other family members in respect of the various family properties situated at village Mauja Silhata, Saranga, Bisrekhi, Bardiya, Bantra and Koilariya Sahvariya. As per agreement, the land of village Sahvariya has been given to Surendra, etc., exclusively. The land of village Bardiya was given to Rajendra and Gokul Prasad and accordingly, other lands have also been settled. The land has been recorded in the name of members of the family as per the settlement in respect of all the villages except Bardiya because the consolidation proceeding was not initiated. When the consolidation proceeding in village Bardiya was initiated, Rajendra, etc., filed the objections claiming that their names be entered in the said land as per the agreement arrived at between the parties, however Gokul Prasad objected to aforesaid claim. The Consolidation Officer has rejected the claim of Gokul Prasad in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties. It has been held that on the basis of the said agreement, the land of other villages has been recorded in the name of respective persons and, therefore, the claim of Gokul Prasad that he was not aware about the said agreement and the said agreement was not acceptable to him has been rejected. The Consolidation Officer, accordingly, passed the order on 11.8.1989. Sri Gokul Prasad filed Appeal No. 487/124/69 of 1988-89 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It appears that Makhroo and Nanhoo alongwith petitioners Lal Chand, Sham Pyari, etc., have also filed Appeal Nos. 521 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 25.6.2003 decided both Appeals No. 487 and 521 by a common order and rejected both the appeals. In the order it has been categorically stated that learned counsel for the parties have been heard and records have been perused. He has rejected the claim of the appellants on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the parties. It has been further held that the burden lies upon the appellants to prove that agreement was not entered into between the parties but they have failed to adduce any evidence.
(3.) IT appears that against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gokul Prasad and his heirs have not preferred any revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mrizapur and Revisions No. 65 and 64 were preferred by the petitioner Lal Chand alongwith other six persons. IT appears that Makhroo etc., filed the recalling Application No. 1175 and Anil Kumar filed recalling Application No. 1176 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and one Sri Kanta claimed to be co-purchaser filed the Appeal No. 422 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 11.10.2004 rejected both the recalling applications and has also held that the appeal has been decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on merits. The Appeal No. 422 filed by Kanta has also been rejected as the issue has already been decided in the earlier appeal vide order dated 25.6.2003 after hearing learned counsel for the parties on merit and there is no reason to take a different view. The revisional authority vide impugned order dated 15.1.2005 rejected both the revisions. It appears that in the grounds of appeal the main submission was that the order was ex parte and had been passed without giving opportunity of hearing. The revisional authority has held that the appellate authority has decided the appeals after hearing both the parties and on perusal of record on merit. Therefore, the allegation of the revisionists that the appeals were decided ex parte without giving opportunity of hearing was not justified. He further held that the plea of the petitioners that there was no agreement in respect of the chak in dispute is not acceptable inasmuch as the properties of the six villages have been settled under the same agreement without any dispute. It has been further held that the petitioners were not able to prove that the property in dispute was the self-acquired property of Sri Gokul Prasad. The burden lies upon the petitioners to prove the same but they have failed to do so.;