BANSHIDHAR AND ORS. Vs. RAM GOPAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Srivastav, holding brief of Sri N.K. Mishra, for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Tahsildar dated 22.9.2006, Sub -Divisional Officer, dated 27.6.2007 and Commissioner dated 14.6.2009, passed in mutation proceeding under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) THE names of the fathers of petitioners -1 to 3 and respondents -1 to 3 were same namely Bhagauna alias Bhagwandas, with same parentage, caste and address. Both were having land in village Chandauli. In khatauni 1309F -1314F, khata 298 [consisting plots 59 (area 0.337 hectare) and 917 (area 0.639 hectare) total area 0.976 hectare] and khata 299 [consisting plot 1088 (area 1.251 hectare)] of village Chandauli, pargana Charkhari district Mahoba were recorded in the name of Bhagauna alias Bhagwandas. Admittedly father of the petitioners died in the year 2003. Revenue Inspector mutated, names of the petitioners over khata 298 on the basis of report on PA -11 -A on 11.1.2005.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the application filed by the father of the respondents, no pleading was raised in respect of compromise before Assistant Consolidation Officer and order passed on it. Alleged order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 31.12.1992 in Case No. 3044 is a forged and fabricated order. It has never seen the light of day till the death of the father of the petitioners. Revenue Courts have illegally relied upon it. Entry of Revenue Inspector dated 11.1.2005 on the basis of PA -11 -A was genuine entry it was not liable to be deleted. Land of both the khatas were recorded in Jotbahi of the father of the petitioners issued on 11.10.1970, on which photograph of their father was affixed and was admitted by Ram Bishal. In consolidation no objection was filed by father of the respondents and his claim was barred under section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Statement of the witnesses have been misread and misinterpreted. He submits that impugned orders are illegal and are liable to be set aside.