The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession based on a patta must be lawful to confer sirdari rights under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition arises out of title objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short ‘the Consolidation Act’) decided by the statutory Authorities against the petitioner.

2. The dispute in this petition is about the title to Plot No. 337/2 (new Plot No. 484) of Khata No. 706, admeasuring 1.66 acres, situate in Village Jungle Belwa, Tappa Chaura Badgaon, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar (earlier District Deoria). The aforesaid property shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the property in dispute’. The petitioner, Godawari Devi, claims herself to be the sirdar of the property in dispute on ground that she has been in continuous possession since before the abolition of zamindari, holding the said property on the basis of a patta dated 28.12.1950, executed in her favour by the erstwhile zamindar.

3. It is also the petitioner’s case that taking her possession to be unlawful, proceedings for eviction were initiated against her under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Z.A. & L.R. Act’) on a report of the Lekhpal before the Tehsildar, Padrauna. These proceedings were registered as Case No. 179. The defence to the petitioner’s possession, based on the patta dated 28.12.1950 executed by the erstwhile zamindar, was accepted by the Tehsildar and the notice discharged. In a related development, the Gaon Sabha, treating the property in dispute as theirs’ executed a patta thereof in favour of Ganesh son of Rampati, since impleaded as respondent No. 6 to the writ petition under orders of this Court. On the basis of the said patta, respondent No. 6 claims himself to be the title-holder in possession of the property in dispute. He claims to have been recorded initially as a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, and, subsequently, as a bhumidhar with transferable rights in the khatauni for the fasli year 1418-1423.

4. The contest in this case, therefore, is between the petitioner, claiming herself to be a sirdar on the basis of the zamindar’s patta dated 28.12.1950, on the foot of which, she asserts continuous possession, and on the other, respondent No. 6, claiming that the said land vested in the State and settled with the Gaon Sabha, who executed a patta in favour of the said respondent. According to the stand of the Gaon Sabha and respondent No. 6, it is the said respondent, who is in possession and his rights have enlarged into a bhumidhari. Before this Court, effectively it is respondent No. 6, who has defended his title and possession on the foot of the Gaon Sabha patta and contested the matter.

5. After the case for ejectment brought by the Gaon Sabha under Section 122-B of the Z.A. & L.R. Act was dismissed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 27.09.1971, the petitioner sued for declaration of her title based on the zamindar’s patta under Section 229-B of the Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioner’s suit for declaration, however, abated because consolidation operations intervened. It is then that the proceedings, leading to the orders impugned in the present writ petition, commenced with the petitioner lodging objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Consolidation Act. The petitioner’s objection before the Consolidation Officer, registered as Case No. 12123, was contested by the Gaon Sabha. The following issues were framed (translated into English from Hindi):

“(1) Whether Godawari Devi is sirdar of Gata No. 337/2 on the basis of possession?

(2) Whether Gata No. 337/2 is Gaon Sabha land?”

6. Both the issues were answered together by the Consolidation Officer. He considered the testimony of PW-1, Ram Sanehi and PW-2, Kedar Nath. The Gaon Sabha did not produce any evidence. The evidence that was heard and considered by the Consolidation Officer, as well as his reasoning, would be dealt with in the course of this judgment. For the present, suffice it to say that the Consolidation Officer rejected the petitione