Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 14386 of 1984 Petitioner :- Mohd.Hasan And Others Respondent :- Ddc And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.A.Pandey,Imtiyaj Ali,Murtaza Ali,S.C. Verma,Vinod Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- SC,N.P.Singh,S.R. Singh,Sri Singh,Vijan Rathore
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village, the petitioners filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') against the entries in the basic year Khatauni, wherein they were shown as Class IV holders of the disputed plots. On the objections of the petitioners, Case No. 5381/118 was registered in the court of Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') and it appears from the records that a report was submitted to the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O.') who forwarded the same to the C.O. It was stated in the report that the petitioners were in possession over the disputed plots and the disputed plots were in the nature of a grove. It also appears from the records that during the proceedings in the aforesaid case, the concerned Gram Pradhan appeared as a witness in favour of the petitioners admitting their possession over the disputed plots. The C.O., relying on the entries in favour of the petitioners in the Khatauni relating to 1358, 1366 and 1371 Fasli and the Khasra entries in their favour in 1311 and 1374 Fasli as well as the report referred earlier, vide his order dated 27.2.1979 held that the petitioners had been wrongly recorded as Class IV holders of the disputed plots and are entitled to be recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plots. The order dated 27.2.1979 passed by the C.O. was challenged in Revision No. 75 of 1983 registered under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, i.e., respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'). The D.D.C. vide his judgement and order dated 6.7.1984 has allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 27.2.1979 passed by the C.O. The order dated 6.7.1984 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the report forwarded to the C.O. by the A.C.O., it was evident that the disputed plots were in the nature of grove and were in the possession of the petitioners, and therefore, the order of the C.O. holding that the petitioners are entitled to be recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plots was according to law and the D.D.C. had erred in law in setting aside the said order. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the disputed plots were settled in favour of the petitioners by the erstwhile Zamindar before the abolition of Zamindari under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') and the petitioners were recorded as grove holders of the disputed plots in 1358 Fasli and also in 1359 Fasli, and therefore, the C.O. had rightly accepted the claim of the petitioners to be recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plots. It is further argued that the D.D.C. has set aside the order passed by the C.O. and allowed the revision without considering the case of the petitioners and has mechanically passed the aforesaid order merely on the ground that the disputed plots had vested in the Gaon Sabha without setting aside the findings of the C.O. that the plots were in the nature of grove. It was argued that in any case the matter was liable to be remanded back to the C.O. for fresh adjudication and the D.D.C. had erred in not remanding back the matter.
4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the records.
5. Whether a plot vests in the Gaon Sabha or any private land holder depends on the nature of the plot as existing on the date of vesting and the entries in the revenue records are relevant to ascertain the nature of the plot on the date of vesting. The relevant revenue record would be of 1359 Fasli. A reading of the order dated 27.2.1979 passed by the C.O. shows that while accepting the claim of the petitioners, the revenue entries relating to 1359 Fasli were not considered by the C.O. The petitioners were admittedly in possession of the disputed plots and were, therefore recorded as Class IV holders of the disputed plots in the basic year Khatauni. No inspection was required for the said purpose. No witness was required to prove the possession of the petitioners over the disputed plots. It is interesting to note that the Gram Pradhan had appeared as a witness to prove the possession of the petitioners even though the same was admitted by the state authorities by their entries in the revenue records. A reading of the order dated 27.2.1979 also shows that the C.O. has considered the revenue records relating to 1358, 1366 and 1371 Fasli, but has failed to consider the Khatauni of 1359 Fasli. In his impugned order dated 6.7.1984 the D.D.C. has noticed that the disputed plots were recorded as Banjar and Pond in the revenue records. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners can not be held to be Bhumidhar of the disputed plots merely because of favourable entries in 1358, 1366 and 1371 Fasli. The petitioner has filed a copy of the Khasra of 1359 Fasli which shows the petitioners to be Class-12 holders of the disputed plots while in their counter affidavit the respondents have annexed a copy of the Khasra of 1359 Fasli showing it to be a pond. It is not for this Court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudge the genuineness of the said documents. It is sufficient to note that the said documents were not part of the records in the courts below and it was not the case of the petitioners in the courts below that the entries in the basic year Khatauni were contrary to the entries in the revenue records relating to 1359 Fasli or that the entries in 1359 Fasli were erroneous and were liable to be corrected. An examination of the different orders of the consolidation authorities shows that the petitioners were claiming title over the disputed plots on the basis of entries in the revenue records prepared after the Act, 1950 came in operation and Khasra entries in their favour in 1311 Fasli as well as the nature of the disputed plot on dates subsequent to date of vesting. Khasra is not a document of title and the nature of land as existing on the date of vesting is relevant to decide as to whether land would vest in the Gaon Sabha or any landholder. The burden was on the petitioners to prove their case that they were the Bhumidhars of the disputed plots and entries in the basic year Khatauni were liable to be corrected. In his order dated 27.2.1979, the C.O. did not consider the relevant documents while allowing the objections of the petitioners and the order of the C.O. was rightly set aside by the D.D.C.
6. The relevant materials necessary to decide the issues regarding the disputed plots have been considered by the D.D.C. in his order dated 6.7.1984. In his impugned order, the D.D.C. has rightly held that the petitioners could not be held to be Bhumidhars on the evidence available before the C.O. There is no illegality in the order dated 6.7.1984 passed by the D.D.C.
7. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Anurag/-