A judicial order passed by an authority lacking statutory jurisdiction is invalid. For claims of possession to establish title, strict compliance with mandatory provisions in land record manuals is required; failure to adhere to these protocols renders possession entries inadmissible in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shriprakash Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. O.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khata no. 720/40, 722/92, 746/40, 755/24 situated in Village Rampur Bagha, Tappa Parwar Par, Pargana Sidhuva Jobna, Tehsil Hata, District Deoria which were recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation in the name of petitioner/ Laxmi and respondent no.10/ Dhoopai son of Jai as sirdari plots. Khata no. 267 was recorded in the name of respondent no.11/ Kali and others, khata no. 93 was recorded in the name of respondent no.8, Feku son of Rajmani. Against the basic year entry of the consolidation operation, obection under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.8, Feku son of Rajmani with the prayer that 92 dismil area should be added in his khata. Objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act were also filed by petitioner/ Laxmi as well as respondent no.11/ Kali. A compromise was alleged to take place between the parties before Assistant Consolidation Officer by which 92 decimal area of disputed plot was settled in favour of petitioner. A suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was alleged to be filed by petitioner/ Laxmi against the respondent no.11/ Kali and others which was stated to be decided in favour of plaintiff by J.O. vide judgement dated 25.11.1965. The title objection filed by petitioner/ Laxmi was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.6.1980. The appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act filed against the order of Consolidation Officer was dismissed vide order dated 22.9.1980. The revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner/ Laxmi as well as respondent no.8- Feku were dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.1981. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for the following relief:-

3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 12.10.1981 and stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the disputed plot if the petitioner has not already been dispossessed.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 12.10.1981, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that consolidation authorities have failed to decide the title dispute in proper manner, as such, impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that plot no. 722 area 92 dismil is sirdari plot of the petitioner and petitioner is in possession over the same. He further submitted that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by petitioner was decreed declaring the plot nos. 720/40, 722/92, 746/40, 755/24 as sirdari plot of the petitioner vide judgement dated 25.11.1965, as such, Consolidation Court cannot reject the petitioner's claim filed under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the petitioner before the consolidation authorities have not been taken into consideration, as such, the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that compromise taken place before the Assistant Consolidatio