The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and legal provisions, and not relying on erroneous or contradictory claims.

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Heard Sri S. C. Verma learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tripathi B. G. Bhai for contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The dispute relates to plot No. 993 situate in village Gajehra, Tahsil Bansi, District Basti. In the basic year the said plot was recorded in the name of the petitioners. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed on the ground that they have perfected their rights as sirdar on the basis of long possession and the name of the petitioners is wrongly recorded and is liable to be expunged. The claim was contested by the petitioners on the ground that they were in possession of the land in dispute since the time of their ancestor and their father be-came Adhivasi and thereafter sirdar. It was further pleaded that the father of the petitioners was declared Adhivasi under the provisions of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and the compensation was received by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and since no objection was filed by them under Section 240 (G) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, their claim of Sirdari is barred.

3. It is undisputed that the father of the petitioners had filed suit under Section 229 read with Section 234-A of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act against the father of the contesting respondents No. 2 to 4 in the Court of Judicial Officer, Basti seeking declaration that he was Adhivasi in possession of the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the father of the contesting respondents that he was sir holder from before the Zamindari Abolition and after the date of vesting he has become Bhumidhar. The suit was dismissed on 18-4-1955 which was challenged in appeal. The Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur vide judgment dated 21-7-1955 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to trial for return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. After remanded the plaint was returned to the father of the petitioners. He, however, did not pursue the matter any further.

4. On an analysis of the evidence on record the Consolidation Officer found that in 1359-F, the father of the petitioners was recorded as Asami. He claimed to be declared as Adhivasi and the contesting respondents received compensation. No objection was filed by them under Section 240 (G) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act as such their claim for Sirdari stands barred. In so far as entry of possession of the respondents in the Khasra of 1363-F to 1373- F, the Consolidation Officer found that entry of possession was not made in accordance with prescribed procedure inasmuch as the entries were never verified by the Supervisor Quanungo nor any P. A.-10 was ever prepared and issued. The same findings have been confirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal filed by the contesting respondents. The Deputy Director of Consolidation placing reliance upon the judgment dated 18-4- 1955 dismissed the suit filed by the father of the petitioners claiming declaration as Adhivasi and held that since the petitioners were not declared to be Adhivasi they could not be declared Sirdar and the proceedings awarding compensation were irregular. He also placed reliance on the Khasra entire and held that the father of the contesting respondents and thereafter the contesting respondents are in possession since before Zamindari Abolition.

5. The Deputy Direct of Consolidation wrongly placed reliance upon the decree dated 18-4-1955. The said decree dismissing the suit filed by the father of the petitioners seeking declaration as Adhivasi was set aside by the Additional Commissioner in appeal. Once the said decree was set aside, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error in relying upon the same and holding that compensation proceedings were irregular.

6. There has been no denial on the part of the contesting respondents that they did not receive the compensation. There is also no dispute about the fact that the contesting respondents had never filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document