SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Govind Krishna, counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.A.Azami counsel for respondent no.2.
(2.) The dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2 in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot Nos. 10 & 12. Respondent no. 2 is the Gaon Sabha. The facts of the case as evident from the pleadings of the parties and the records annexed with the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2, are that Khelawan Yadav, the father of the petitioner, instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950) for declaration of his Sirdari rights over the disputed plots. One Smt.Buddhia was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots and in his plaint Khelawan Yadav alleged that the said Smt.Buddhia had put him in possession of the disputed plots in 1356 Fasli. The suit filed by Khelawan Yadav was dismissed by the Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 8.4.1965 and the First Appeal filed by Khelwan Yadav was also dismissed by the Additional Collector (Judicial), Azamgarh vide his judgment and order dated 1.3.1966. Aggrieved Ram Khelawan filed Second Appeal No.226(2) of 1965- 66 before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment & order dated 17.7.1970. The claim of Khelawan Yadav was rejected on the ground that even if the facts alleged by him in his plaint were true then Khelawan Yadav could only claim to be an Asami of the disputed plots and not an Adhivasi under Section 20 of Act, 1950 and therefore, not entitled to be recorded as 'Sirdar' by virtue of Section 240- A of the Act, 1950. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the aforesaid Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, Khelawan Yadav died and his sons Bharat Ram and the petitioner, i.e. Chutkun were substituted in his place as his legal representatives. It is also relevant to note that Smt.Buddhia died issueless and had no heir and therefore, proceedings were instituted by the Gaon Sabha claiming that the disputed plot vested in the Gaon Sabha by escheat. However, despite the plea of Khelawan Yadav having been rejected by the Revenue Courts in proceedings registered under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950, the petitioner got himself recorded as Sirdar of the disputed plot in the revenue records. Consequently, during the consolidation proceedings in the Village, the petitioner was recorded as Sirdar of the disputed plots in the basic year records and in C.H.Form-5. The Gaon Sabha filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) against the basic year entries and on the said objections Case No.338 and 339 were registered before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953.
(3.) The petitioner contested the objections filed by the Gaon Sabha i.e., the respondent no.2 and filed his reply. In his reply, the petitioner pleaded that the revenue entries in his favour were the result of a decree dated 30.4.1973 passed by the revenue courts in Case No.59 instituted by the petitioner under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950 wherein the revenue court had declared the petitioner to be the Sirdar of the disputed plots. The Consolidation Officer, (hereinafter referred to as C.O) vide his order dated 19.9.1991 relying on the decree dated 30.4.1973 allegedly passed in Case No.59, dismissed the objections filed by the Gaon Sabha.;