IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of correctness of later settlement entries in land records prevails unless rebutted by cogent evidence, and compromises in criminal proceedings do not affect civil land rights.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 31.12.1981 passed by respondent no. 1-Deputy Director Consolidation Faizabad under Section 48 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953) in Revision No. 1517 titled as Ram Naresh vs. Ram Bahadur and others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute with regard to the 32 trees entered in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners and 9 trees in favour of the ancestors of the respondents on gata no. 1906 area 4 bigha 7 biswa 10 biswansi in 1337 fasli i.e. in Khasra of the year 1930. It is further submitted that the gata no. 1906 belonged to zamindar Azam Ali Khan. In 1344-45 fasli i.e. year 1937-38, the name of the ancestor of the petitioners was continued and the name of the zamindar was deleted. It is further submitted that the name of the ancestor of the petitioner was continued and he was covered by Section 18(1)(e) of the Uttar Pradesh zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950), which has come into force on 01.07.1952 and prior to that the ancestors of the petitioners had become grove holder.

4. It is further submitted that since the year 1937-38, the respondents had not raised any objections by filing either any case under the provisions of Oudh Rent Act 1886 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1886) read with amended Oudh Rent Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1921), Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1901”) or under the Act, 1950. It is submitted that the village had come under the consolidation in the 1970's and after about 30 years, for the first time the respondents filed an objection under Section 9(A) (2) claiming co-tenancy right against the 9 trees.

5. It is further submitted that if the conflict is between the earlier and subsequent settlement entries then as per the law settled in catena of judgments of this Court, the later entry would be preferred over the earlier entry unless contrary is proved by cogent strong evidence and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment i.e. Lal Behari vs. Ram Adhar, 1985 LCD 415, Anjuman Islamia Lakhimpur vs. Chandra Prakash Pitaria, 2007 (25) LCD 721 and Niazu vs. D.D.C. 2015 (128) RD 797.

6. It is further submitted that the basis of claim of co-tenacy by the respondents were on two grounds firstly, there name was entered in Khasra of 1337 fasli and secondly, a compromise was entered between the parties in the proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C.

7. It is further submitted that the compromise which has been relied is in the proceedings under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. which is preventive in nature and the compromise if any, made under those proceedings is not binding in the proceedings under the Act, 1953.

8. It is further submitted that the respondents in their objection before the consolidation officer or before the appellate authority had not challenged the subsequent entry of 1345 fasli much less proved it to be a wrong entry by any evidence whatsoever, rather not a word has been said about the subsequent entry except claiming their co-tenacy right as per the two counts as submitted above.

9. On the other hand, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and Shri Avinash Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents have submitted that the name of the ancestors of the respondents were entered in the khasra of 1337 fasli against 9 trees but in the 1345 fasli, their names were not there though they are legally entitled for their co-tenancy rights on the 9 trees in pursuance of entry made in the 1337 fasli and they have rightly filed an objection under Section 9(A)(2) during the consolidation proceedings before the consolidation officer.

10. It is further submitted that the compromise was entered and once it is accepted by the