Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Facts of the present case, in brief, are that, initially plots in dispute were mentioned in revenue record as "submerged land". Contesting- respondents herein initiated proceedings when village was brought under consolidation and claimed right of sole ownership. The dispute reached up to Revisional Authority and land in dispute was recorded in the name of contesting-respondents. Other proceedings were also concluded in their favour and admittedly at that stage petitioners have neither made any claim on land in dispute nor participated in these proceedings.

2. At later stage, petitioners have filed objections under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as "Act, 1953") with an application for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned and it was deemed that objections were filed under under Section 9A of Act, 1953. The Consolidation Officer has framed following two issues:

3. Consolidation Officer after considering rival submissions rejected objections filed by the petitioners and rejected their claim of co-tenancy vide order dated 24.07.1972. Relevant part of order is extracted hereinbelow:

(Emphasis supplied)

4. Petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.1973. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis supplied)

5. In above circumstances, petitioners preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.02.1975. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Above referred three orders are impugned in this writ petition.

7. Sri A.K. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners, referred the averments made in paragraphs no. 11 to 17 of writ petition and contended that they were not at all answered in counter affidavit, i.e., there was no specific denial to it, therefore, it may be considered to be admitted. Said paragraphs are extracted hereinafter:

"11. That the petitioners and Mohammd Jalil had jointly contested suit and ultimately the suit was dismissed on the ground that since Mohammad Rasool and Mohammad Shakoor did not execute the decree for joint possession obtained in Suit No. 318 of 1943 therefore they are not entitled to any injunction. A true copy of the judgment and decree of the trial court in suit No. 57 of 1956 are Annexures 3 and 4 of this writ petition.

12. That the petitioners had also filed the certified copy of Khasra of 1284 Fasli recoding all the plots as holdings of the parties' ancestor. A true copy of Khasra of 1284 Fasli is Annexure 5 to this writ petition.

13. That Mohammad Shakoor and Mohammad Rasool had filed a second appeal No. 400 of 1961 against the judgment and decree arising out of Suit No. 57 of 1956 in this Hon'ble Court which was abated on 3.2.1969 on account of the start of consolidation of holdings operation. A true copy of the order of this Hon'ble Court is Annexure 6 to this writ petition.

14. That in Suit No. 57 of 1956 it was clearly held that the defendants of that suit including the petitioners and Mohammad Jalil were in joint possession of the plots.

15. That the petitioners had filed the certified copies of all these documents mentioned in preceding paragraphs before the Consolidation Authorities. In a case before the Consolidation Officer the opposite party no. 4 Mohammad Jalil himself stated that the plots in dispute were ancestral property of family and grove of the family and no plea of partition was taken by him. A true copy of the said sta