Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2714 (ALL)

Phool Chand v. D. D. C. , Jaunpur

2016-08-05

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri V.K. Singh for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.2.2008 by which application of the petitioner for recording his name over plot no.569, area 0.0194 hectare of village Saidpur, pargana Hawali, tehsil Sadar, district Jaunpur has been rejected. It is alleged that in previous consolidation, Consolidation Officer by order dated 22.9.1965 in Case No.681 of 1965 under Section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") directed for recording the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute. In spite of the order of Consolidation Officer, the name of the petitioner was not recorded in final consolidation record i.e.CH Form 45 of previous consolidation. The petitioner filed an application before the revenue court, which was allowed and the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute. However, that entry was deleted on the complaint of Chhabiraj and others, by Deputy Director of Consolidation as such entry in favour of the petitioner be restored. Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties found that the name of the petitioner was recorded without any basis over the land in dispute. According to the petitioner he filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P. Act No.1951, which was dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter, he filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.47 of 1979) which was also dismissed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 30.4.1988. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Second Appeal before Board of Revenue, U.P. that was also dismissed by order dated 01.8.1986. Thus, the claim of the petitioner has not been accepted by any of the revenue courts and the aforesaid orders have become final. The finding of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation that the name of the petitioner came to be recorded by making forgery in CH Form 23 could not be challenged by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner could not show that the land in dispute was recorded in his name prior to previous consolidation. Otherwise also suit of the petitioner under Section 229B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 has already been dismissed upto the stage of Board of Revenue in the year 1986 and that judgment has become final between the parties and operates as res judicata against the petitioner. Otherwise also suit of the petitioner under Section 229B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 has already been dismissed upto the stage of Board of Revenue in the year 1986 and that judgment has become final between the parties and operates as res judicata against the petitioner. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.