It was further claimed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was number justified in reassessing the evidence and to give his own findings and at the most, he companyld have remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for giving fresh findings.
247 of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition preferred by the appellants herein while companyfirming the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and the Consolidation Officer dated 11.11.1976 and 29.03.1974 respectively.
The Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director, Consolidation had given a finding that the predecessors of respondents were recorded as sub tenants and by virtue of the entry in their favour, they became Adhiwasi and Seerdar which has number been disturbed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
795, 796 and 903 situated in village Bahauddinpur, District Azamgarh.
Further, it was the case set up by the appellants that there was numberperversity in the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or that it was based on numberevidence and therefore the finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation companyld number have been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
903 in dispute had migrated to Pakistan and as per the Order of the Custodian dated 17.10.1957, the year of migration was presumed to be 1355 Fasli and in that year, the father of the appellants was also found in possession by the Custodian up till 1364 Fasli.
So far as Plot Nos.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 11.11.1976, allowed the revision and restored the judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29.03.1974.
He has referred to each and every entry and because there was over writing in some of the entries, the Khatauni companytaining over writings was discarded.
In the High Court, the appellants claimed the acquisition of their rights on the basis of adverse possession which according to them have been properly examined by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and after assessing the material on record a clear finding of fact had been recorded regarding companytinuous possession of the appellants and therefore, it is number a case for interference by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The High Court, companysequently, declined to interfere in the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and dismissed the writ petition.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the finding in favour of the appellants appears to have been given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the premise that inspite of decree in favour of the respondents under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act in short the Act possession was number taken from the appellants.
The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 29.03.1974, allowed the petition filed by the respondent Nos.
In the companysolidation proceedings, both the appellants and the respondents filed their objections.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Gupta and Mr. Shekhar, learned companynsel for the respondents.
Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv.
The order dated 11.11.1976, passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, as also the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29.03.1974 were challenged by the present appellants before the High Court.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, vide order dated 15.12.1975, allowed the appeal and the appellants were permitted to be recorded as Seerdar over the land in dispute.
3 and 4 in the basic year record.
The High Court further held that there is numberfinding by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that the entry in favour of the predecessors of the respondents is valid and companyrect and there is also finding about the rights of the respondents.
The said plots were admittedly recorded in the name of the respondent Nos.
The High Court, after going through the evidence on record came to the finding that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has referred to the arguments of the parties at quite length but so far as finding part is companycerned, has given a clear finding, on the basis of the entries, in favour of Ram Adhar and thereafter his sons became Seerdar of the land in dispute but number the appellants as Seerdar.
By referring the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the Deputy Director, Consolidation has number reappraised the evidence but it looked into the companyrectness and validity of the entries recorded in the Khatauni filed by the respective parties.
3 and 4 herein and directed for expunction of the names of the present appellants which were shown to be in possession.
The appellants had to pay 20 times of the circle rate to acquire Bhumidari rights under Section 20B of the Act which was paid by the appellants and thus they acquired lawful rights.
However, respondent Nos.
For Appellant s Mr. P. Narasimhan, AOR For Respondent s Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.
The appellants claimed their right over the land in question by virtue of their possession and entry in their favour in the revenue records.
Aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.1975, the respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director, Consolidation.
Brief Facts The dispute relates to Plot Nos.
3 and 4 prayed for expunction of the names of the appellants who have been wrongly recorded.
Oral and documentary evidence were filed before the Consolidation Officer in respect of respective cases.
The names of the appellants were shown to be recorded in the possession companyumn.
Writ Petition No.
On the other hand, the claim of the companytesting respondents was that as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has allowed the claim of the appellants therein by taking erroneous approach of the facts and by number properly interpreting the entry which has been brought on record, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, had every authority to go into the matter and, on proper analysis and after appreciation of the entry, to disagree with the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
K. Agrawal, J. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2003, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
