KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Heard Sri S. C. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Though the case has been taken up but no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 Gaon Sabha.

3. Dispute relates to plot Nos. 324 and 329 of khata No. 17 and plot Nos. 325 and 327 of khata No. 16. In the basic year two plots of khata No. 17 were recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1 whereas the khata No. 16 was recorded in the name of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. During consolidation operation objections were filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha to expunge the name of the petitioners from the khata in dispute and to record the same in the name of Gaon Sabha. Proceedings were contested by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that the then Zamindar Hari Nath Singh had executed a lease deed in respect of the land in dispute in the year 1951 in favour of peti tioner No. 1 and under the orders of the Tehsildar dated 13. 6. 1958, the name of pe titioner No. 1 was recorded over the land in dispute. It was a so pleaded that petitioner No. 1 obtained bhumidhari Sanad on 20. 9. 1962 and thereafter, executed a regis tered sale deed of plot No. 325 and 327 in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. Consolida tion Officer vide order dated 29. 10. 1969 allowed the objection filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and directed the name of the petitioners to be expunged from the land in dispute. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation two ap peals were filed. Appeal No. 180 was filed by petitioner No. 1 whereas appeal No. 170 was filed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. Settle ment Officer Consolidation allowed

the appeal No. 180 filed by petitioner No. 1 and accepted the claim set up by him that the then Zamindar had executed lease in his favour on the basis of which his name came to be recorded and subsequently, he became bhumidhar after obtaining bhumidhari Sanad. In so far as the claim set up by petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 is concerned the same was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation merely on the ground that sale deed was not brought on record. The order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by petitioners as well as Gaon Sabha. Deputy Director of Consolidation clubbed the two revisions and vide order dated 12. 1. 1971 dismissed the revision filed by the petition ers whereas the revision filed by Gaon Sabha was allowed. Deputy Director of Consolidation did not place reliance on the order passed by the Tehsildar directing the mutation of the name of petitioner No. 1 only on the ground that the proceedings are summary in nature. It has further been held that in khatauni 1361 Fasli the land in dispute was recorded as jangal and even if the same was settled by the then Zamin dar in favour of petitioner No. 1 that would not affect the rights of the Gaon Sabha in asmuch as after abolition of the Zamindari the land recorded as jangal came to be settled with Gaon Sabha under section 117. bhumidhari Sanad obtained by petitioner No. 1 has also been disbelieved on the ground that the land was recorded as jangal and no bhumidhari Sanad could have been issued.

4. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that if in the basic year the name of the petitioners was recorded there was absolutely no occasion for the land to have been recorded as jangal in 1361 Fasli. It has further urged mat there was no such evidence on record before the Consolidation Officer and the said finding has been recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation of his own with out there being evidence in that record.

5. I have considered the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record.

6. From a perusal of the judgement of the Consolidation Officer as well as Set tlement Officer Consolidation it is apparent that there is no discussion about the khatauni of 1361 Fasli and fardmutabakat relied upon by the Deputy Director of Con solidation. Further once the land was set tled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document