IMPORTANT POINT
There is valid presumption in favour of a registered adoption deed and it cannot be
discarded unless it is dislodged by adducing cogent evidence.

A.P. Sahi, J. —Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the supplementary affidavit filed today.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the Gaon Sabha questioning the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.12.2008 whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondent No.4, who has transferred the land to respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 represented by Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha Advocate, has been allowed on the ground, that there was no occasion for the Settlement Officer Consolidation to have restored the appeal and to have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. However, a perusal of the revisional order also indicates that in view of the powers conferred upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the UPCH Act, he has also entered into the merits of the main contention namely the dispute between the parties relating to the adoption of the respondent No.4 Shyam by the original tenure holder late Yadi Ram.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was in public interest that the appeal had been restored by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and that the matter ought to have been rightly allowed to have been decided on merits by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in view of the dispute raised as the property had vested in the Gaon Sabha.

4. A perusal of the memo of revision which was filed, had questioned the validity of the restoration order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, but a perusal of the order indicates that all the issues that were primarily involved on merits including the issue of adoption had also been contested by the Gaon Sabha while opposing the revision before the revisional authority. The revisional authority considered the facts recorded by the Consolidation Officer, which was to the effect that the entire ceremony of adoption which stands recorded in the deed in favour of the respondent No.4 had been proved by production of the witnesses who were then available. Not only this, full opportunity was given to the Gaon Sabha and to the private objector Ram Swaroop to lead evidence. The burden of proof had already been discharged by the objector and the onus was shifted on the Gaon Sabha to disprove the adoption.

5. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Consolidation Officer that no evidence was led to disprove the adoption as claimed by the respondent No.4 for which full opportunity was afforded. This finding of the Consolidation Officer was again put to test before the revisional authority and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the facts on record arrived at the same conclusion which is to the effect that the adoption had already been proved.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise an issue that the respondent No.4 Shyam had filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for a declaration on the basis of the said adoption deed. The said suit had been allegedly dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the said suit having been dismissed in default, the respondent No.4 lost his rights therefore nothing further could have been said on the basis of the said adoption. He contends that in view of the aforesaid fact there was no occasion for the Consolidation Officer to entertain the objection and allow the same.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and it is also clear from a perusal of the order, that no such order was filed before the Consolidation Officer or before the Settlement Officer Consolidation or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to prove that such a proceeding had taken place. Even otherwise the matter had been dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the said judgment would operate as res-judicata or estoppel against the respondent No.4. The question as to whether the adoption was valid or not, has been contested before