Brindra and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Anand Prakash Pandey for the petitioners and Sri Manish Kumar Tiwari for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.9.2013 by which the revision filed by the respondents, has been allowed and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.10.2011 was set aside.

The dispute relates to plot No. 375 which was allegedly recorded in the name of jainandan in 1363-F-1365-F. It is alleged that by making forgery in the khatauni against the name of Jainandan, plot No. 375 has been interpolated as plot No. 475 and in the khatauni of Tilku & others, this plot No. 375 has been added by making forgery. The petitioner could not know about the forged entry. On coming to know about this forgery, an objection u/s 9 has been filed, along with an application for condonation of delay on 23.11.2011. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it has been stated that Jainandan died in 1950 and the father of the petitioner died in 1983. The DDC in the impugned order found that the earlier consolidation in the village was started in the year 1960 and notification u/s 52 took place in the year 1968. Thereafter again, second consolidation in the village was started in the year 2007. Notification u/s 9 of the Act was made on 4.1.2007, while objection u/s 9 was filed on 29.7.2011. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was barred u/s 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the delay was not liable to be condoned.

The Counsel for the petitioners states that at the time of death of the father, the petitioners were minors, as such, on attaining the age of majority, the objection has been filed by them. He further submits that as the forgery has been committed in the records, as such, the proceedings of earlier consolidation on the basis of forged entry are vitiated and in such circumstances, the CO has rightly condoned the delay by order dated 12.10.2011. He further submits that the bar applied u/s 49 does not effect the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities. It only effects the jurisdiction of Civil Court as well as Revenue Court. In such circumstances, the delay was rightly condoned, but the DDC has illegally interfered in the matter and set aside the order of CO.

I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the parties and examined the record.

The finding recorded by DDC that the earlier consolidation was started in the year 1960 and notification u/s 52 took place in the year 1968, has not been challenged. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was alive at that time. In case the land in dispute was not recorded in his name in basic consolidation record as forgery was allegedly committed in the khatauni 1363-F-1365-F, corresponding to the year 1955-1957 then, the father of the petitioner was required to file objection u/s 9 of the Act. In case objection was not filed by the father of the petitioner, then he or any person through him cannot claim right, title or interest over the land in dispute in view of section HA of the Act.

Admittedly, the father of the petitioner survived till 1983 and he has never raised any claim in respect of the land in dispute during his lifetime. The title, if any, has already been lost more than 50 years ago, as such, in such circumstances, the DDC has rightly refused to condone the delay. The order of DDC does not suffer from any illegality. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.