- (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated 22.06.2019 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953') ordering the deletion of the name of the petitioner's father from the basic year Khatauni.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that according to the petitioner the name of the father was ordered to be recorded in the consolidation operations by the order of the A.C.O. dated 10.11.1972 alleged to have been passed in Case No. 713, however, the said order was not given effect in the records prepared during consolidation operation including CH Form 11, 23 as also the final records i.e. CH Form 41 and 45. Consequently, when the consolidation operations were de-notified in the year 1982 under Section 52, the consolidation records, which were transmitted to the Record Room, did not bear the name of the petitioner's father in respect of the Gata in dispute and the Khataunis which were prepared thereafter continued to bear the name of father of opposite party no. 2 Late Sarju Naraun who was the initially recorded tenure holder in respect of the land in dispute, including in the basic year Khatauni. The petitioner on coming to know of the aforesaid entry in the basic year Khatauni initiated proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1954') for entry of his name in the revenue records on the ground that the order of A.C.O. dated 10.11.1972 was not given effect during the consolidation operation itself, therefore, the operations were deemed to be pending in this regard, however, the opposite party no. 2 who in fact appeared in the proceedings under Rule 109 and filed objection initiated separate proceedings before the Grievance Redressal Forum of the Chief Minister, wherein some orders were passed whereupon some inquiries were conducted and ultimately the impugned order has been passed by the Chief Revenue Officer under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 holding that the entry of the name of the petitioner's father in the basic year Khatauni in place of the name of the father of the opposite party no. 2 was invalid and void, as, no such case has been found registered during the consolidation operations nor are there any entries to this effect in CH Form 11, 23, 41 and 45.
(3.) This Court has heard Shri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dileep Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.;