Validity of recorded ownership requires substantiation through evidence, especially regarding compromises and claims made in revenue records under consolidation proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Ganga Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.

2. By means of the instant petition the petitioners assail the order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby revision preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed affirming the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which in turn upholds the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 29.10.2018.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter. The dispute relates to Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.00016 hectare which was recorded in the name of Sadhu, son of Sarju. It is the case of the petitioners that Sadhu had entered in a compromise with Bhagwan Prasad (who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) and in pursuance thereof the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was given possession and the name of Bhagwan Prasad came to be recorded in the revenue records relating to Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.00016 hectare.

4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the order dated 20.11.1961 was never challenged either by Sadhu or any other persons, hence the name of Bhagwan Prasad (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) continued to remain recorded. After the death of Bhagwan Prasad the name of the petitioners came to be recorded and it was also reflected in the Consolidation records wherein as per CH Form 45, the new number of Plot No.1308 was recorded as 2204. It is only in the second round of consolidation that the private respondents raised objections that the name of Bhagwan Prasad and after him, the name of the petitioners was incorrectly recorded in the revenue record.

5. Significantly, the private respondents had instituted a suit for permanent injunction wherein the present petitioners were impleaded as defendants. The suit for permanent injunction bearing R.S.No.250 of 2004 came to be dismissed on 14.02.2008.

6. It is pointed out that in the said civil suit the private respondents herein were the petitioners and they admitted that Plot No.1308 measuring 0.121 hectares situate in village Belsar, Pargaran Diksir, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda was in the possession and ownership of the private respondents. This clearly indicated that the remaining part of the land was with the present petitioners. The present petitioners also had filed their separate suit bearing R.S.No.343 of 2004 wherein they had stated that they were the owner in possession of Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.00016 hectare and the trial court finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners also granted an interim order dated 03.11.2004 directing the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed plot.

7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the contention of the petitioners is that the name must continue to remain recorded in respect of Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.04 decimal. It is further reflected from the record that upon the commencement of the second round of consolidation the private respondents raised an objection relating to Plot No.1308 stating that the name of the petitioners (earlier their predecessor- in-interest, namely, Bhagwan Prasad) was incorrectly recorded; inasmuch as Sadhu had executed a sale deed in favour of the private respondents (through