JUDGEMENT
Hon'ble S.U.Khan, J. -
(1.) At the time of arguments, no one appeared on
behalf of contesting respondents even though the case was taken up in the revised
list, accordingly only the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were
heard.
(2.) Matter relates to agricultural Plot No. 321, area 14 biswas, situate in village
Kanspur Gugauli, District Fatehpur. At the start of the consolidation, Raghunandan,
respondent No. 1 filed objections that he was in possession over the land in
dispute, hence the name of Ganesh, the grand-father of the petitioner recorded in
the revenue records should be expunged and his name should be entered. The
names of respondents No. 1 to 2 were entered in the revenue records under
Clause (IX) as trespasser. Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the contesting
respondents and dismissed their objections. True copy of order of CO. Fatehpur
dated 17.9.1973 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition (passed in Case No. 2149 of
1973). Appeal filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by S.O.C. on
26.12.1973. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter,
revision was filed by the petitioner being Revision No. 126, Shanker Singh v.
Raghunandan Singh and others Revision was dismissed on 17.7.1974, hence
this writ petition.
(3.) The case of the contesting respondents was that they were in possession
for more than statutory period prescribed for filing of suit against trespasser (six
years at the relevant time). The appellate Court has observed that in the revenue
records possession of contesting respondents was recorded from 1366 to 1377
Fasli except for the years 1369 Fasli and 1373 Fasli. The appellate Court held
that in the two crucial years 1369 and 1373 Fasli, the names of contesting
respondents' were not recorded in the revenue records as occupant either
accidentally or due to mischief of lekhpal. It was further held that without any
order, lekhpal could not delete the names of the contesting respondents for two
years in between. Revisional Court also adopted the same line of reasoning.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.