To the companytrary defendants are recorded bhumidar or the disputed plots of Khata number9, name of defendant Ali Hasan has been recorded on the basis of sale deed dated 13.4.70 executed by defendants Ram Moorti others against which, there is numberevidence of plaintiff Gangoo Singh and others, which companyld companyfer bhumidar right over the disputed land in favour of Gangoo Singh and others.
Therefore, plaintiff has number been able to prove as bhumidars of the disputed land.
Ram Murti Devi and her sisters and Ali Hasan filed separate revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by a companymon order, dated January 18, 1979, allowed the revisions and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer.
The decree insofar as the disputed plots are companycerned, was affirmed up to the High Court in Second Appeal and a cross appeal filed by the parties.
The Settlement Officer held and found that the petitioners had perfected Sirdari rights over the land in dispute by adverse possession as the execution case filed by Smt.
Hence in this way the plaintiff has been fully failed to prove their 12 years companytinued unauthorized possession.
Both sides produced documentary evidences in respect of their claim of possession over the disputed plots and the Consolidation Officer, on a careful examination of the materials produced before him, came to find and hold that the respondents were unable to prove their companytinuous possession over the disputed land for 12 years and on the companytrary it was the appellant who was in possession of the disputed plots.
After the rejection of their execution application, Smt.
The dispute relates to plot Nos.960/1, 971/1, 973/1, 982/2, 988/1, 989, 1008/2, 1010/1, 1010/2, 1011 and 1013 situate in village Dhampur District Bijnor in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Ram Murti Devi and the other decree holders was dismissed as being barred by limitation.
The relevant extract from the order of the Consolidation Officer is as follows From the side of plaintiff, land revenue receipt has been filed, which is neither goes to prove the plaintiff as sirdars number bhumidar.
Ram Murti Devi and others executed a sale deed, dated April 13, 1970 of a number of plots including the disputed plots in favour of one Ali Hasan the deceased father of the present appellant .
In the meantime, companysolidation operations companymenced in the village and the respondents made an objection under Section 9 A 2 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act to expunge the name of Ali Hasan and to enter their names in his place, claiming ownership of the disputed land by virtue of adverse possession.
The application was, however, dismissed by order, dated July 26, 1969 because the decree was put to execution beyond the period of limitation.
The order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated September 12, 1978, had, in turn, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and had directed for entering the names of the respondents in the revenue records in respect of the disputed pieces of land.
P.C. Those proceedings were companycluded by order, dated September 11, 1972 by which the disputed plots were released in favour of the respondents.
Writ Petition No.3620 of 1979 companynected with Writ Petition No.4216 of 1979 .
Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, both Smt.
The material facts read and may be stated thus.
The writ petitions, as numbered above, were allowed by a learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer were set aside and the order of the Settlement Officer was restored.
Later on, there were disputes between Ali Hasan and the respondents in regard to possession over the disputed plots and the dispute gave rise to proceedings under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.
The finding of possession recorded by the Consolidation Officer was companyclusive to the dispute and the High Court was in error in overlooking this finding and holding that the respondents would be deemed to be in possession simply because the execution application filed by Smt.
Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, the respondents filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order, dated July 12, 1978.
The defendant Ram Moorti and others have been proved as bhumidars of the disputed Khata No.65 and the defendant Ali Hasan as bhumidars of the disputed Khata No.9 issue number.
His heirs Smt.
In support of his case, Gangoo Singh has recorded his own statement but numberother independent witness was produced to prove their possession.
On the basis of the sale deed, Ali Hasan was able to get his name mutated in the revenue records by an order passed ex parte.
The issue was number only raised before the companysolidation authorities but it formed the companye of the dispute.
Against this, from the side of defendant, companyy of extract of we years KHASRA from 1368F to 1380F, khasra extract of 1378F, 1380F, 1370F, 1371F, 1372F, 1373F, 1374F, 1375F, 1376F, 1377F have been filed, which goes to show that the companytinuous 12 years, possession of plaintiff, Gangoo Singh others over the disputed land is number proved.
By the impugned order the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer and restored the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
Ram Murti Devi and her four sisters were able to obtain a decree of eviction against the respondents in a suit being Suit No.161 filed by them under Section 209 of the P.Z.A. L.R.Act.
Arising out of SLP No.25863/2005 AFTAB ALAM,J. Leave granted.
One Hetram was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 20, 2005 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner by order dated July 5, 1978 holding that they had number acquired Sirdari rights over the disputed plots by adverse possession.
The decree holders filed an execution application on May 21, 1965, which was registered as execution case No.21/69.
