The Deputy Director of Consolidation has broad powers to review evidence and rectify entries in revenue records, ensuring rightful ownership is determined based on valid evidence.

JUDGMENT

Manish Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Anil Kumar Mauray, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.07.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Revisional order dated 29.09.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner was entered in the Khasra from 1367 fasli to 1375 fasli i.e. from the year 1960 to 1968 and on the basis of which the appellate order has been passed in favour of the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner was in the Khatauni prepared prior to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into existence and even at the time of basic year fasli when the village had come under the consolidation proceedings.

5. It is further submitted that the plot alleged to be in possession of the respondent from 1368 fasli to 1370 fasli and 1371 fasli was not accepted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in its order. It is further submitted that the land alleged to be redeemed in the year 1947, in actual, the same was never redeemed, hence the claim of the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 on the basis of the same cannot be sustained.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 has submitted that the plot nos. 205, 206, 227, 182, 412 and 101 were mortgaged by their ancestors to Sri. Lakshman Sahu and subsequently a redemption was made in the year 1947 and plots were redeemed. In pursuance of the redemption, the name of ancestors of the respondents were entered in the Khatauni and the other revenue record relating to Plot Nos. 205, 206, 227, 182, 412 except the plot no.101 by mistake of the Lekhpal, who had not entered the name.

7. It is further submitted that at the time of consolidation proceedings the respondents had filed an objection under Section 9(A)2 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1953') for expunging the name of Sursati by making entry in favour of respondents against the Plot No.101, which has been sub-divided in Plot No.101/1 and 101/2.

8. It is further submitted that name of Sursati had come in the records for the limited period of 8 years since 1960 to 1968, in the Khasra she was alleged to be in possession of the land and except that neither Sursati had produced any documentary evidence how she was claiming her name to be entered in the records nor her name was ever entered in the Khatauni which decides the title over the land.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out is that the plots nos. 205, 206, 227, 182, 412 and 101 were mortgaged by Late Chandrabali Singh, the ancestor of the respondents in the year 1944 in favour of Sri. Lakshman Sahu and thereafter it was redeemed in the year 1947. The names of the successors of the respondents were entered in the revenue records as far as Plot Nos.205, 206, 227, 182 and 412 are concerned, but due to some mistake by the Lekhpal the name of the ancestors of the respondents were not entered with regard to the plot no.101 and at the time of consolidation proceedings they had come to know about the same that after expunging the name of Lakshman Sahu the name of the petitioner Smt. Sursati was entered in the Khasra from 1367 fasli to 1375 fasli i.e. since 1960 to 1968.

10. On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner how the name of the petitioner has been entered in the Khasra, whether she was related to Lakshman Sahu or any of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no knowledge about the same. The second query which was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that where are the documents i.e. Khataunie