Ram Nath Singh and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Shri S.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties, who appears through caveat. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title. Objections u/s 9/9A of U.P.C.H. Act were filed by both the petitioners who are sons of Nawab Singh before Consolidation Officer on 4.1.1993 praying that the name of Aniruddh Singh shall be expunged from the revenue record in respect of agricultural land comprised in Gata No. 906. Opposite parties 4 to 8 are legal representatives of Aniruddh Singh. Objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 31.8.1998 however the order was set aside on restoration. Therefore through order dated 16.9.2005 Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi, allowed the objections. Again restoration application was filed which was allowed on 10.11.2010 and earlier order dated 31.8.1998 dismissing the objections was revived. Against the order dated 10.11.2010 petitioners filed Appeal No. 235. Settlement Officer of Consolidation Hardoi, allowed the appeal on 15.6.2013 set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.11.2010 and expunged the name of Aniruddh Singh from the revenue records over the land in dispute and entered the same in the name of Nawab Singh, father of the petitioners. Against the said order, contesting opposite parties filed Revision No. 431/2013-14 Shiv Kumar and others v. Ram Nath. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 13.11.2013, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15.6.2013 and order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.11.2010 was revived. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Revisional Court.

Consolidation Officer as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have maintained the basic year entries (when the consolidation proceedings started in the area in question).

In 1356 as well as 1359 Fasli Khatauni name of Nawab Singh was entered. However, in Khasra from 1359 to 1371 Fasli name of Nawab Singh was recorded as main tenure holder and name of Aniruddh Singh as sub-tenant and in 1363 Fasli name of Aniruddh Singh was entered as main tenure holder.

It is specifically mentioned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that in Khasra 1359 Fasli, name of Nawab as main tenure holder and Aniruddh Singh as sub-tenant was entered, same position was there in Khasras of 1361 and 1362 Fasli, Khasra of 1360 Fasli was not available, however since 1363 Fasli name of Aniruddh Singh was entered as main tenure holder and name of Nawab Singh was expunged. 1363 Fasli corresponds to 1955-56 A.D. Objections were filed in 1993 i.e. after about 38 years. Absolutely no reason was given for this undue delay and silence. The lower revisional Court allowed the revision placing reliance upon section 20 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and U.P. Land Reforms amendment Act 1954. u/s 20 it is provided that every person who on the date immediately preceding date of vesting was a sub tenant shall be called Adhiwasi. Thereafter through operation of law Adhiwasis became Sirdars. 1359 Fasli ended on 30.6.1952 and U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was enforced w.e.f. 1.7.1952. Accordingly section 20 was squarely applicable. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation decided the matter in favour of the petitioners on the ground that it was not shown that entry of 1359 and 1363 were correctly made. In case of old entries particularly for applying section 20 of the Act it is not necessary to see whether the entries are correct. In any case it was for the other side to show that entry was wrong. After such long time it is almost impossible to file supporting orders, documents etc. to prove correctness of entry. Entries cannot challenged after a long time vide Sahibdar Khan and Another Vs. Sadloo Khan (Dead) by LRs. and Others, Moreover in following authorities it has been held that correctness of the entries for the purposes of section 20 can not be doubted or questioned and even in correct entry (unless shown to have been made fraudulently or surreptitiously) will be sufficient to confer the right of Adhivasi/Siradar/Bhumidhar upon the per- son shown to be de facto occupant, in preference to de jure occupant:

Amba Prasad Vs. Abdul Noor Khan and Others,

Sonawati and Others Vs. Sri Ram and Another,

Nath Singh and Others Vs. The Board of Revenue and Others,

Wali Mohammad (Deceased) by Lrs Vs. Ram Surat and Others,

Hira Lal and another Vs. Gajjan and others,

Chandrika Prasad Vs. Pullo (Dead) By Lrs. and Others,

Ram Avadh and Others Vs. Ram Das and Others,

In the last authority of 2008 it has been held that if entry is continuing for 11 years since before start of consolidation then it cannot be questioned in consolidation proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited the following 3 authorities which do not support his contention:

Shri Ram v. Pilau Singh. 1964 RD 208

Phagu v. Sita Ram. 1963 RD 111

Gurumukh Singh v. D.D.C. 1997 (88) RD 276 (SC)

Accordingly, there is absolutely no error in the order passed by the D.D.C. Writ petition is dismissed.