SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) Heard Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 240 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed plot'). Harprasad, i.e., the father of the petitioner was recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plot in the basic year records and the respondent No. 2 was recorded in Jamman 9. Because of the dispute between Harprasad and respondent No. 2, Case No. 3163 under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was registered before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'). Respondent No. 2 claimed Bhumidhari right over the disputed plot on the basis of his adverse possession. The C.O. vide his order dated 15.4.1982 rejected the claim of respondent No. 2 and allowed the claim of Harprasad directing that Harprasad be retained in the revenue records as Bhumidhar of the disputed plot and the name of respondent No. 2 be deleted from the same. Aggrieved, respondent No. 2 filed Appeal No. 208 under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), which was rejected by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 5.7.1985. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision No. 922 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), who vide his order dated 7.12.1993 allowed the aforesaid revision and held that respondent No. 2 had acquired Bhhumidhari rights over the disputed plot by adverse possession. The order dated 7.12.1993 passed by the D.D.C. in Revision No. 922 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) Challenging the order dated 7.12.1993, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order passed by the D.D.C. is a non-speaking order inasmuch as no reasons have been given in the same. It was further argued that the D.D.C. has exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 by reversing the findings of fact recorded by the C.O. and the S.O.C. in their orders dated 15.4.1982 and 5.7.1985. It was further argued that in his testimony the respondent No. 2 had stated that he was ignorant about the identity of the real owner of the disputed plot and, therefore, thee was no question of respondent No. 2 acquiring rights over the disputed plot by adverse possession. It was argued that in his impugned order dated 7.12.1993, the D.D.C. has not considered the aforesaid testimony of respondent No. 2, and therefore, the order dated 7.12.1993 was vitiated due to non- consideration of relevant material and the findings recorded by the D.D.C. in favour of respondent No. 2 are without any evidence. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 7.12.1993 is liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In support of his argument, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in Shambhoo and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another, 2015 (126) RD 784.;