The court held that procedural irregularities cannot undermine established substantive rights, affirming the petitioners' status as Bhumidars with transferable rights.

JUDGMENT :

Irshad Ali, J.

1. Supplementary affidavits filed by both the parties are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

3. In spite of notice to the respondents, no one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.9.1994 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is further prayed to issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the respondents not to implement the impugned order dated 6.9.1994 and further they be restrained from proceeding anymore.

5. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners have been in physical possession over the plot No.5053 measuring 3 bighas 8 biswa and plot No.5054 measuring 3 bighas 7 biswa since the period of zamindari, however, their names were not recorded in the records of Unnao. When the consolidation proceeding started in the village, during partal, the petitioners were found in physical possession over the aforesaid plots in dispute, however, the said plots were recorded as banjar in the revenue records.

6. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer, Nawabganj, Unnao with a prayer that their names be recorded as Seerdar over the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to prepare a report after making spot inspection of the plots in dispute and as such the Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared a report thereby giving his finding that plots are in possession of the petitioners and they are being cultivated by them and these plots have never been cultivated by the Gaon Sabha and no dispute of whatsoever nature were raised by the public or Gaon Sabha at the time of Consolidation partal, however, these plots are recorded in the village papers as banjar.

7. Vide judgment and order dated 21.1.1994, the Consolidation Officer, Nawabganj, Unnao allowed the case of the petitioners filed by them under Section 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act thereby directed that plot No.5053 measuring 3 bighas 8 biswa and 2 biswansi and plot No.5054 measuring 3 bighas, situated at Gaon Sabha, Unnao be recorded in the name of the petitioners as Seerdars, the land revenue be fixed according to the Rules and amal daramad be made accordingly.

8. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 21.1.1994, neither the Gaon Sabha nor other villagers including the respondent No.5 preferred appeal before the next higher court of Consolidation nor before any other court and as such the finding and order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 21.1.1994 became final.

9. It is submitted that although specific direction was given to record the name of the petitioners as tenure holders as Seerdars of the plots in dispute and it was also directed that amal daramad be made accordingly, but inadvertently their names could not be recorded in the records of the village, however, the petitioners have remained continuously in possession over the plot in dispute and they have been cultivating over the land. It is relevant here to mention that after completion of the consolidation proceedings, the village has been notified under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, thus, finding about the entries over the land of village have become final and the title of the petitioners as held by the consolidation authority cannot be challenged before any court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. It is submitted that in spite of the aforesaid facts, names of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were recorded in varg-char in the intkhab khatauni, though they have never been in possession over the plots in dispute and they have no right. Moreover, rights and titles of the petitioners have already b