High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jayata Prasad v. D.D.C. &Others - WRIT - B No. 5983 of 1974  RD-AH 9571 (20 May 2007)
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.5983 of 1974
Jayata Prasad Vs. Dy.Director of Consolidation & Others
Hon. Janardan Sahai,J
In the basic year Jayata Prasad the petitioner was recorded. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the respondents Deep Narain & Others. The objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal was preferred by the respondents Deep Narain and others which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. A revision was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Dy.Director of Consolidation. The finding is that in 1356 F, Raj Narain the petitioner's father was recorded as a tenant whereas Shankar the father of respondents Deep Narain & Others was recorded in possession. In 1359F also there is similar entry. The Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Dy.Director of Consolidation have recorded a finding o;f fact that the possession of Shankar was established and that the petitioner was unable to establish his case.
Heard Sri Aditya Narain counsel for the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer had dismissed the objections of Deep Narain & others on the ground that in paper correction case under Section 33/39 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act, there was an order for entering the name of the petitioner and that the said order operates as a bar to the maintainability of the objections. This reasoning of the Consolidation Officer was wholly erroneous because the order passed in a paper correction case will not be binding in objections under Section 9 of the Act. Sri Aditya Narain counsel for the petitioner submitted that the paper correction case pertains to three plots but the objection were confined only to one. It is however not disputed that the relief which has been granted in the present case is only in respect of one plot for which objections have been filed. It was submitted that there was oral evidence as well as documentary evidence consisting in the form of irrigation slip and khasra entries from 1363 F to 1377 F on the basis of which the possession of the petitioner was established and this material has not been considered by the Dy.Director of Consolidation. The Dy.Director of Consolidation has considered the khasra entry 1356F in which Raj Narain petitioner's father is recorded as tenant and Shankar father of respondents as shi kmi over khata 20/53. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has relied upon the entry of 1356F.It was submitted by the petitioner's counsel that Jayata Prasad has stated that there was an enmity between Lakhpal and him and therefore entry of 1356 F and 59 F is fictitious. On such a mere statement an entry cannot be discarded. He has taken me through the statement of Jayata Prasad. No doubt in his examination in chief he has admitted that before him his father and uncle were in possession but in the cross examination he stated that he is in possession after the order passed in correction of paper case. From the arguments that are noted in the order of the Dy.Director of Consolidation, it appears that this was also the case of the petitioner before the Dy.Director of Consolidation that the petitioner is in possession since the order passed in the correction of paper case. In the circumstance the statement is not such upon which reliance can be placed. As regards the other khasra entries it has not been demonstrated as to how the petitioner's right on the basis of possession has been established as counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to when consolidation operations started in the village. The finding recorded by the Dy.Director of Consolidation are findings of fact.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.