Bhumidhari rights under the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act are a creation of statute and cannot be conferred based on admission by a private person.

S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

In this peti tion, challenge is to the order dated 19-12-2005 passed by Deputy Directory consolidation, Sidharthnagar in revision whereby order dated 28-11-2001 passed by Settlement Officer Con solidation, Sidharthnagar in Appeal No. 622 and 623 under Section 11 (1) of the U. P Consolidation of Holdings Act was affirmed.

2. The dispute revolves round plot Nos. 159 admeasuring 1/0-034,159 ad measuring 2/0-082, 137 admeasuring 2/0-044 and 209 admeasuring 2/0-053 situated in village Bishanupur Ahedmali, Tappa- Chawara, Pargana Basi East, District Sidharthnagar. It would appear that in the basic year Awadu, Parushram and Pachu sons of Kaipa Veva Vindashvaree were rocorded as Bhumidhars. To begin with, an objec tion was filed by Pachu and other con testing Opp. parties 3 to 6 seeking division of the land in dispute on the ground that Kalpa was spirited away by death and her property had devolved upon them. Another set of objection was filed by petitioners claiming rights on the basis of possession spanning about 30 years-otherwise than in ac cordance with law-attended with prayer that they be declared as Bhumidhar on the basis of possession and the names of recorded tenure holders be ex punged from the revenue record. .

3. The Consolidation Officer, who was seized of the matter, passed order dated 28-11-1990 by which he directed expunction of the names of contesting Opp. parties attended with further direc tion to record names of petitioners as Bhumidhar in the revenue record. Ag grieved by and dissatisfied with the order, an appeal was filed before Settle ment Officer Consolidation by Awadhu father of contesting Opp. parties 5 and 6 which culminated in being allowed and order of Consolidation Officer being set aside attended with further relief of declaring Opp. parties as Bhumidhar and expunction of the names of petitioners. In the revision, which came to be preferred thereafter, the order of Settlement Officer Con solidation came to be affirmed.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and have also been taken through the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners began his submission urging that Pachu contesting Opp. party who was one of the cotenant also, had admitted to petitioners possession over the property extending to about40 years in his statement dated 26-9-1990. Learned Counsel, propped up the judg ment of the Consolidation officer can vassing that while considering the case of parties, the authority has taken into reckoning Khatauni 1373 Fasli to 1377 Fasli ar:d 1378 Fasli and Khasra of 1376 for 12 years from 1376 Fasli. Assailing the decision of appellate as well as revisional authority, he canvassed that their decisions- reversing the order of Consolidations officer, were impaired by reason of being arrived at without reckoning into consideration the relevant materials. He further can vassed that the petitioners possession is proved from evidence on record otherwise than in accordance with law and therefore, proceeds the submis sions, the impugned judgments of both the authorities below suffer from the blemish of an error on the face of record and are liable to b& quashed.

6. It would first take for scrutiny of the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The quintessence of the finding is that the Settle ment Officer Consolidation, found, taking into reckoning the admission of Pachu that there was enough materials on record that he never made any such statement containing his admission and further that admission, if any, seemed to have been made by some imposter. Pachu also confuted his thumb impression/signatures. The fur ther finding of the appellate Court is that entries made in Column 9, were not in accordance with law and that PA.-10 was neither issued nor served to the recorded tenure holders. It was further found by Settlement Officer Consolida tion that the entries examined by it were also not in continuation and that petitioners were not found in unabated and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document