Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1190 of 1981 Petitioner :- Ahmad Khan And Others Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.K.Saxena,Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- M.A.Qadeer,S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Sri M.A. Qadeer, Advocate originally represented respondent nos. 4/1 to 4/4 and respondent no. 5. After the death of Sri M.A. Qadeer, Advocate, notices were issued to the aforesaid respondents to engage another counsel.
In view of the office reports dated 15.11.2018 and 21.1.2019, service of notice on the said respondents to engage another counsel is deemed to be sufficient.
List has been revised.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the said respondents.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
During the consolidation proceedings held in the village, the petitioners filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') to be recorded as sole Bhumidhar of Plot No. 724 (area 4.49 acres). It appears that in the revenue records relating to the basic year, the respondents nos. 4 and 5 were shown to be in possession of certain portion of the aforesaid plot. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 also filed their objections praying to be recorded as Sirdar of the aforesaid plot. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the different revenue records, held that the respondents were recorded in possession over certain portion of Plot No. 724 only from 1375 Fasli and, therefore, they cannot be held as Sirdar of the said plot and thus, dismissed their objections. The consolidation Officer vide his order dated 24.6.1976 also dismissed the objections of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not been able to establish their claim of being the sole tenure holder of Plot No. 724 as their name was not recorded in any revenue records subsequent to 1362 Fasli, therefore, their objections were also liable to be rejected. Consequently, the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 24.6.1976 dismissed the objections of the petitioners. Against the order dated 24.6.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners filed appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was numbered as Appeal No. 2686. The aforesaid appeal of the petitioners was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 7.1.1977 and the petitioners were declared to be Bhumidhar of 0.75 decimal of Plot No. 724. Through the aforesaid order dated 7.1.1977, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation also directed that the name of respondent no. 4 regarding the aforesaid 0.75 decimal be deleted from the revenue records and the petitioners be recorded in place of respondent no. 4. The petitioners as well as respondent no. 4 challenged the order dated 7.1.1977 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hamirpur, i.e., respondent no. 1 by filing Revisions under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which were registered as Revision Nos. 3922/431 and 3940/440. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hamirpur, i.e., respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 23.10.1980 dismissed the aforesaid revisions. The orders dated 24.6.1976, 7.1.1977 and 23.10.1980 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that it was proved in the courts below that the petitioners were Sirdars of 4.49 acres of Plot No. 724 and the claim of the petitioners was established from the different revenue records filed by them. It has been argued that the Consolidation Authorities had passed their orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners without considering the relevant revenue records and the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities are liable to be set-aside and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners and also perused the records.
It is evident from the order dated 7.1.1977 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Hamirpur that in the revenue records of 1359 Fasli relating to Plot No. 724, 1.45 acres in Plot No. 724 was recorded in the name of One Baaur, i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. However, subsequently, the respondent no. 4 was recorded as Sirdar of the aforesaid plot. In his order dated 7.1.1977, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Hamirpur, after considering the revenue records relating to 1359 Fasli, held that respondent no. 4 was in possession of only 0.70 acre of Plot No. 724 and, therefore, he was entitled to be recorded as Sirdar of only 0.70 acre of Plot No. 724 and was wrongly recorded as Sirdar of the total 1.45 acre in the aforesaid plot. Consequently, relying on the entries in the revenue records relating to 1362 Fasli, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation held the petitioners to be Bhumidhars of 0.75 acre in Plot No. 724 and directed that the name of respondent no. 4 be deleted from the same. The aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 23.10.1980. The entries in the revenue records relating to 1359 Fasli have not been disputed by the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any revenue records or any evidence which could established his claim over 4.49 acres of Plot No. 724. The findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his impugned order are concurrent findings of fact and based on evidence on record. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any perversity in the aforesaid findings and, therefore, the said findings are not liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Satyam