Sukkhu vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Vikram Nath, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Despite the fact that the case has been taken up in the revised call. No one has appeared for the Respondents.

In the basic year records, Basantu, Ganga son of Antu, Vishwanath and Shiv Nath were recorded as sirdar over the land in dispute. The Petitioner Sukkhu son of Rameshwar filed objections u/s 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming rights on the basis of adverse possession. Before the Consolidation Officer the recorded tenure holders filed objection denying the claim of Sukkhoo. Both the parties lead evidence. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of Sukkhu with regard to plot in dispute. The appeal filed by the Respondents was dis-missed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the Respondents and restored the basic year entries, after setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded the following findings:

(i) The name of Sukkhu was not recorded in any of the revenue records prior to 1964 Fasli.

(ii) The entry of possession of Sukkhoo, the Petitioner, was not in accordance with law.

(iii) The entry in 1365, 1366 and 1368 Fasli regarding possession was also not in accordance with the rules as prescribed under the Land Records Manual.

(iv) There was no evidence on the record to show that PA-10 had been served upon the recorded tenure holders.

(v) It is also recorded that the alleged compromise between Dukhani, Bansantu and Ganga would not be binding on Bishambhar, Vishwanath and Shiv Nath.

(vi) It has also been recorded that on the basis of the Khasra entries from 1365 to 1370 Fasli, the Petitioner would not perfect his right on the basis of adverse possession.

(vii) The Petitioner was failed to establish his claim that he was recorded since prior to abolition of Zamindari.

All the above findings are based on consideration of the material documentary and oral evidence on record and apparently do not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction.

Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has sought to argue that the Petitioner had established that his rights stood perfected in view of the oral evidence and the documentary evidence lead before the Consolidation Officer. The argument does not appeal inasmuch as the Deputy Director of Consolidation having considered the material has recorded a different finding which is a pure finding of fact.

It has further been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that it was admitted to the Respondents that the Petitioner was residing in the house situated over the land in dispute as such the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was contrary to the evidence on record. Even this argument does not appeal inasmuch as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has already clarified that 0.03 decimal of the plot in dispute was abadi and over which no adjudication could have been made in the consolidation proceedings.

No further arguments have been argued.

In view of the above discussion the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.