The Gaon Sabha must pass a resolution in accordance with paragraph 128 of the U. P. Gaon Samaj Manual in order to authorize the contest of litigation before the consolidation authorities.

ORDER :- This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of Sri R.C. Sharma, Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16-11-1970, by which he has dismissed the revision of the writ petitioners and allowed the revision of opposite party No. 3.

2. The dispute relates to plot No. 63 measuring a bigha 5 biswa and 6 biswansis situate in village Salarpur Pargana Dewa Tahsil Nawabganj district Barabanki. It was recorded Banjar in the basic year in the village record. Earlier to the consolidation proceedings the petitioners father filed a suit for declaration of his bhumidhari rights over the prove. The suit was dismissed by Munsif Barabanki. The appeal filed by the

petitioners father was also dismissed by the Civil Judge, Barabanki. A second appeal was pending in the High Court at the time of the notification under S. 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the second appeal abated.

3. In the objection taken under S. 9 of d the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the petitioners claimed to be bhumidhars of the plot in dispute stating that the plot grove was ancestral. They also claimed rights by adverse possession. Opposite party No. 3 Gaon Sabha contested the objection and alleged that the plot was d Banjar and not a prove and the entry of Banjar in the village papers was correct. It is alleged in the petition in para. 6 that no resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha as also that there was no authority of the Gaon Sabha to engage a lawyer. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 8-5-1967 allowed the objection of the petitioners to be Bhumidhars of the same. The Settlement officer Consolidation by his order dated 9-11-1967 allowed the appeal in part and held that a portion of the plot which is marked as A at the sketch map prepared by the Commissioner was in possession of the Petitioners and their grove with regard to the areas of the portions marked as C he held that they were not in the character of grove, nor in their possession on the date of vesting and they were rightly recorded as Banjar and vested in Gaon Sabha. With regard to portion marked as B he also held that the objectors could retain possession over the trees as scattered one but the same cannot be treated as their grove.

4. The Deputy Director by his order dated 16-11-1970 allowed the revision of opposite party No. 3 and dismissed that of the petitioners. While dealing with previous civil litigation he held as follows :-

"The concurrent findings of the learned Munsif and the learned Civil Judge that the land in dispute was not a grove may not have attained finality but they certainly constitute a strong piece of evidence of the fact that in the first litigation after the abolition of zamindari the land in dispute was not held to be a grove."

He has been very much influenced by the finding of the learned Munsif and the Civil Judge, little realising that a second appeal had been preferred in the High Court which could set aside the above orders but which, for intervention of the Consolidation of Holdings proceedings, abated. About the finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation that the portion marked as A is grove he held as follows:-

"This order is obviously improper because the whole plot has to be treated as one unit for giving a finding whether it is a grove or not. Holding that a portion of the plot has the character of grove is basically incorrect."

He further held as under :-

"At the mast they might be owners of those trees but such ownership is not to be determined by the consolidation courts when the land in dispute is outside the Scheme of Consolidation."

5. After discussing the matter he came to the conclusion that there was no force in the revision application filed by the petitioners and dismissed the same. He set aside the order of the learned Settlement Officer Consolidation confirming the Bhumidhari rights over a portion of the plot on the objectors. As a result ho held that the basic year entry in the record shall continue.

6. Mr. S. Mi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document