The burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate ownership through authentic records, while the State's maintained records hold prevailing authority.

JUDGMENT

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

Heard Sri U.S.Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. By means of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 09-04-1999 passed by the District Director of Consolidation,Gonda.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name of original tenure holder namely, Mathura Prasad was recorded as Sirdar in 1362 Fasli Khatauni and it was continued uptill the date of vesting and the land, which is in dispute, is plot nos. 8/0.24,14/0.33,23/0.61,56/0.41,79/0.46,80/0.57,150/ 0.20, 164/0.34, 165/0.32,179/0.33 and 180/0.37, acres of Village-Rampur, Pargana-Gwarich, Tehsil-Tarabganj, (now Tehsil-Colonelganj),Gonda. Original tenure holder, Mathura Prasad died leaving behind his sole daughter namely, Smt. Rajpati and Smt. Rajpati was his sole legal heir and the land in dispute of Mathura Prasad, was unlawfully declared as 'Matrook' alongwith the other Sirdars/Bhoomidhars, namely, Paras Nath, Smt. Parvati, Ayodhya Prasad, Ram Achal, Lalta Prasad, Tunmun, Munna, Sundar Lal, Babu Lal, Ram Khelawan, Chhote Lal, Dan Bahadur Singh and once the consolidation proceedings commenced in the years 1969-1970, of this village, objection was filed by Smt. Rajpati, under section 9(A) (2) of CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT , 1953(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1953'). On such objection, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26-12-1979, passed in Case No. 8048, expunged the entry of 'Matrook' and the name of Smt. Rajpati was restored in the records of the land as well as the entry of 'Matrook' with regard to the abovesaid persons, have also been expunged and their names were also recorded in the revenue records, but, the entry in case of Smt. Rajpati was challenged only by the State and Gaon Sabha as the then officials were inimical with the petitioner.

4. Adding his arguments, he submits that infact in the entry, in CH,Part-I (Khata No. 338), the order dated 26-12-1979 was endorsed. After the aforesaid, Smt. Rajpati, executed a registered will in favour of the petitioner and she died, thereafter, the petitioner applied for the mutation under section 12 of the 'Act, 1953', which was allowed vide order dated 29-10- 1985 by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 72 and the name of the petitioner was recorded as Bhoomidhar in 1403-1408 Fasli Khatauni and Khasra of 1404 Fasli.

5. On 28-01-1999, the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, affirmed that the order dated 26-12-1979 was passed by the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 29-10-1985 was also passed by the Consolidation Officer and the certain area of 'Bachat land' was directed to be expunged from the 'Bachat land' and was recorded in the name of Smt. Rajpati. He submits that the Village-Rampur was de-notified under section 52 of the 'Act, 1953', on 17-08-1985. He added that the orders dated 26-12-1979 and 29-10- 1985, were not assailed in any appeal or revision and the same became final. On 20-12-1987, without following any proceeding, on the basis of a complaint made by one Raj Kumar Singh(opposite party no. 2), the alleged order dated 20-12-1987 was passed by the D.D.C. and even the notice was also not issued to the petitioner and under the garb of the aforesaid order, the name of the Gaon Sabha was recorded in the revenue records.

6. Further argued that the order dated 20-12-1987, has never seen light of the day and it was never produced by the State in this writ petition, though, several orders were passed by this court. He also a