Rajes Kumar - (1.) HEARD, Ms. Afshan Shafaut, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) BY means of present petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.12.2005, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti in Revision No. 1514/2005, by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. It appears that in consolidation proceeding, the petitioner could not file the objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The consolidation proceeding was concluded prior to 1993 and a notification in respect of the village in dispute has already been issued under Section 52 of the Act on 17.4.1993. However, the petitioner filed the objection under Section 9A (2) of the Act on 12.7.2002 before the Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.6.2004 rejected the objection. Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed on 19.5.2005. Being aggrieved by the appellate order, petitioner filed the revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Deputy Director of Consolidation in its order observed that the Settlement Officer Consolidation in its order dated 19.5.2005 held that Gata Nos. 61, 59 and 60 for which the petitioner is making claim are entered as forest land and is a property of the State and in respect of the village in dispute the notification under Section 52 has been issued on 17.4.1993. Moreover, the petitioners have not been able to adduce any evidence that such land was in the name of their predecessors and by mistake it had become property of Gaon Sabha. On these facts it has been held that there is no error in the impugned order of the Consolidation Officer and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notification under Section 52 has not been issued and has not been published in the News Paper and, therefore, such notification cannot be a bar. Learned standing counsel submitted that the Gazette notification has been annexed as CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. He further submitted that there is no material on record to show that there is no publication. He submitted that this averment has been made in the rejoinder affidavit therefore, cannot be considered at this stage. He further submitted that all the courts below have held that the property in the name of the petitioners in respect of Gata Nos. 61, 59 and 60 were recorded as forest land and belonged to the State Government. No evidence in this regard has been adduced to show that the same was ever recorded in the name of their predecessors and by mistake it was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) ANNEXURE CA-1 shows that the notification has been duly published in the Gazette. The averments made in the rejoinder-affidavit that the notification has not been published in the News Paper and there was violation of sub-section (1A) of Section 52 of the Act cannot be entertained at this stage. Moreover, on these facts the claim of the petitioners have been rejected. The findings of the court below are finding of fact, which does not require any interference. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, without imposing of any cost.;