Point of Law : There is no averment as to when the petitioner entered into possession of disputed property otherwise than in accordance with law and that such retention of possession was without consent of the original tenure holder.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Srivastava learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. V.K. Pandey learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.

2. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 25th July, 1998 passed in appeal under section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and the consequential orders dated 13th August, 1998 and 25th July, 2001. By means of impugned order dated 25th July, 1998, appeal against order dated 5th July, 1997 rejecting objections under section 11(2) of the Act 1960 has been allowed.

3. Dispute pertains to a tract of land situate in village Puranpurwa, Patihan, Aithpur, Phulwaria, Gajraura which was earlier recorded in the name of original tenure holder Messers Collective Forms and Forest (Private) Limited to whom notices under Section 10(2) of the Act were served and by means of order dated 31st December, 1964, an area of 80 acres was declared surplus. Subsequently objections under Section 11(2) of the Act were filed by the opposite party No.1 on 17th May, 1983. The same were rejected by the prescribed authority vide order dated 15th November, 1990. Appeal there against was allowed vide order dated 29th January, 1992 remanding the case to the prescribed authority for decision afresh.

4. In pursuance to the said order, matter was reconsidered and by means of order dated 29th June, 1995 objections of opposite party No.1 were again rejected. The dispute again went up in appeal and vide order dated 19th August, 1996 it was again remanded for reconsideration by the prescribed authority, allowing the appeal. In pursuance to aforesaid directions, objections of opposite party No.1 were again rejected vide order dated 5th July, 1997, appeal there against being allowed vide impugned order dated 25th July, 1998 whereby the entire land held to be surplus in 1964 was released in favour of opposite party No.1.

5. Initially vide order dated 10th October 2002, the order under challenge was stayed by means of interim directions.

6. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the order dated 5th July 1997 passed by the prescribed authority rejecting objections of opposite party No.1 was reasoned and cogent order based primarily on the fact that the opposite party No.1 claiming to be in adverse possession over the property in question, failed to substantiate the story of adverse possession.

7. It is submitted that the appellate authority by means of impugned order has completely misdirected itself by looking into the aspect of the opposite party No.1 being in possession over property in question without adverting to the fact that opposite party No.1 has failed to substantiate the story of being in adverse possession.

8. Mr. V.K. Pandey learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the prescribed authority had clearly erred in ignoring the documentary evidence furnished by the opposite party No.1 pertaining to his possession over property in question. It is submitted that the opposite party No.1 very well proved his possession over the property in question and claim of adverse possession which was proved by the revenue records adduced in evidence clearly indicating name of petitioner over the properties. He has placed reliance on judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Satish Chand Mathur and others versus State of U.P. and others reported in 1996 JLR 151 and the Full bench decision in Abdul Wahid Khan and others versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others reported in 1968 ALJ 117 to substantiate that opposite party No.1 had consolidated his right over the property in question in terms of Section 209 and 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on