Nathuram vs D.D.C., Firozabad and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the State as well as Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Standing Counsel for gram panchayat. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 1.11.2011, Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.2014 passed in the title proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot Nos. 153/0.05 acre, 157/1.30 acre and 159/0.50 acre of village Akbarpur, Pargana Shikohabad Distt. Firozabad. The petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer for recording his name over the land in dispute claiming that the land in dispute was granted to him through patta by the Land Management Committee. Although on the basis of patta name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record but in basic consolidation record his name was not recorded. It is alleged that in support of objection of the petitioner, Kalicharan, the then Pradhan was examined who had admitted in his statement that the land in dispute was granted to the petitioner through patta. It has been further stated that on the basis of patta the Sub Divisional Officer by the order dated 19.3.1968 directed for recording the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute and since then the petitioner was in possession over the land in dispute. The case was not contested by the penal lawyers of State of UP or Gram Panchayat. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 19.11.1988 directed to record the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute. Thereafter an appeal was filed by Gram Panchayat, Akbarpur against the order of Consolidation Officer. The appeal was heard by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the order dated 1.11.2011 found that the alleged mutation was in the khatauni and directing to record the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute was a forgery. The petitioner could not produce the copy of patta or any paper to show that land in dispute was allotted to him. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the order of Consolidation Officer was set aside. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 31.10.2014. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute was granted to the petitioner through patta and in pursuance of this, name of the petitioner was also recorded over the land in dispute by the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 19.3.1968. The then Pradhan as well as the Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat admitted that since then the name of the petitioner was continuous and the petitioner was in possession over the land in dispute. The then Pradhan has also admitted for grating patta to the petitioner and in such circumstances the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer has been wrongly set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. The case of the petitioner was that the Land Management Committee had granted patta to the petitioner but the petitioner could not produce the copy of the patta or any other paper relating to grant of patta to the petitioner. The petitioner solely relies upon the mutation incorporated in khatauni 1373F to 1375F on the basis of the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 19.3.1968 passed in case No. 50. Usually, when the patta is granted, then the mutation order is incorporated by the Supervisor Kanoongo and not by the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner could not produce any judgment before the Courts below to show that any case No. 50 was filed by him in which judgment dated 19.3.1968 was passed. Therefore bare recording the name in single year khatauni has been held to be forged document. In case it was genuine entry, then name of the petitioner could have been continued in the subsequent year khatauni. Thus the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer has been rightly set aside. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, it is well settled that on the basis of oral evidence the title cannot be claimed over the immovable properties. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, the writ petition is dismissed.