Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1362 (ALL)

Rani Jai Ratan Kaur v. D. D. C.

2024-05-20

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) : 1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Arpan Shrivastav, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Shri Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village Patka Bogha, Pargana, Khairagarh, District Allahabad came under consolidation operation by way of notification issued under Section 4 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in the year 1971. According to petitioner No.1 a patta was executed by Raja Sahab in favour of petitioner No.1 in 1929 for maintenance as petitioner No.1 was living separately from her husband and petitioner No.1 being disable to do cultivation sublet the land to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the Basic Year of Consolidation Operation, petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar of the plots of Khata No.3 situated in aforementioned village as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition and respondent No.3 was recorded in class-7 as Asami. During consolidation partal, Plot No. 110/3 and 240/2, one Deotadin claimed to be in possession of the plot in dispute. Plots of Khata No. 3/1 was recorded in the name of respondent No.3-Sampat in Class-7 as Asami. Plot of Khata No.1 as mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the writ petition was recorded in the name of petitioner No.1, Rani Jai Ratan Kaur as bhumidhar and respondent No.3-Sampat was recorded in Class-7 as Asami. Plot of Khata No.3 were also recorded in the name of petitioner No.1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur and respondent No.3-Sampat was recorded in Class-7 as asami. One plot No.73/3 area 3 biswa 10 biswansi of khata No.3 was recorded in Class-9 category in the name of respondent No.3- Sampat. Plots of Khata No.8 were recorded in the name of Shri Sant Bux Singh as Bhumidhar. The disputed plots which were recorded in the name of petitioner No.1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur was stated to be transferred later on in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Against Basic Year Entry an objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No.3/Sampat for expunging the entry of class-7 and for recording his name as sirdar. The disputed plots which were recorded in the name of petitioner No.1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur was stated to be transferred later on in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Against Basic Year Entry an objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No.3/Sampat for expunging the entry of class-7 and for recording his name as sirdar. Respondent No.3 contested his claim on the ground that he was recorded in 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli, as such, he became Adhivasi and later on Sirdar. It was also pleaded by opposite party No. 3 that Petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of Raja Bhagwati Prasad Singh, is not a disabled person and the entry of Class-7 as Asami in respect to respondent No. 3 is incorrect and is liable to be expunged. On behalf of petitioner No.1. the claim was set up that petitioner No.1 is a disabled person in view of adjudication took place by a competent court, as such the judgment passed by competent court declaring petitioner No.1 is a disabled person will operate as res-judicata between the parties. It was further pleaded on behalf of petitioners that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 obtained a disputed land by exchanged from petitioner No.1. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.03.1972 rejected the objection filed by contesting respondents and ordered to record their name as Asami as well as the name of Ramhit was ordered to be expunged from Plot No. 73/3, area 3 biswa, 10 biswansi and the name of Deotadin was also ordered to be expunged from Plot No. 110/3, area 2 biswa & Plot No. 240/2 area 10 biswa. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.03.1972 by way of four appeals under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation which were registered as Appeal Nos.86 to 89. The aforementioned appeals were consolidated and decided by common judgment dated 03.07.1972 dismissing the aforementioned appeals. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed four revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation which were registered as revision Nos. 47/3, 48/35, 49/36, and 50/37. The aforementioned revisions were consolidated and heard together. The aforementioned appeals were consolidated and decided by common judgment dated 03.07.1972 dismissing the aforementioned appeals. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed four revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation which were registered as revision Nos. 47/3, 48/35, 49/36, and 50/37. The aforementioned revisions were consolidated and heard together. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 07.07.1973 allowed the aforementioned revisions setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and remanded the matter back before Consolidation Officer for considering the questions of estoppel etc. In pursuance of the remand order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 07.07.1973, the Consolidation Officer heard the matter and rejected the objection of respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide order dated 15.10.1974. In appeal filed under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.10.1974 the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 25.03.1975 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.10.1974. Revision filed by petitioners under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the appellate order dated 25.3.1975 was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 9.8.1978. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 09.08.1978 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 25.03.1975 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 3. In respect to proceedings under Section 240-G and 240-H of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) brief facts of the case are that in Suit No. 191 of 1957-58 under Section 240-G and 240-H of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act an objection was filed by petitioner No.1 on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under Section 157 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act she should be declared disabled and separated wife and the claim of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for Adhivasi/ Sirdari rights is not tenable as respondent Nos.3 and 4 are Asami and petitioner No.1 is Bhumidhar of plot in question. The Compensation Officer framed issues and referred the matter to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Meja, Allahabad who was competent to decide the issue of title. The Compensation Officer framed issues and referred the matter to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Meja, Allahabad who was competent to decide the issue of title. The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer vide judgment dated 13.08.1958 decided the matter in a judicial proceeding considering the objection of respondent Nos.3 and 4 holding that the claim of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for Adhivasi/ Sirdari right is rejected and the claim of petitioner No.1 is accepted. One suit under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was also filed against respondent Nos.3 and 4 which was abated under Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act. 4. This court on 06.11.1978 admitted the writ petition and issued notice to respondent No.4. 5. In pursuance of the order dated 06.11.1978, parties have exchanged their pleadings. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation has committed manifest error of law in holding that adjudication took place under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act will not operate as res-judicata in the consolidation proceeding. He further submitted that Sub- Divisional Officer Meja, Allahabad in suit under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act has held vide judgement dated 13.08.1958 that petitioner No.1 is disabled person and the entry of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is liable to be expunged. He further placed the proceeding which took place before the Compensation Officer under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act in order to demonstrate that proceeding has taken place in proper manner by referring the dispute to the competent authority, framing issues, giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their case and deciding the matter with respect to the title of the parties, accordingly, the adjudication took place under Section 240-H of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act will operate as res-judicata in the subsequent consolidation proceeding in view of full Bench decision of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1975 Allahabad 324 Awdhesh Singh and another versus Bikarma Ahir and others. He further submitted that even in the oral evidence before the Consolidation Authorities petitioners' witness namely Ram Kripal has not stated that Raja Sahab is in possession over the land in dispute but Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation has misread the oral evidence adduced by petitioners' witnesses Ram Kripal. He further submitted that even in the oral evidence before the Consolidation Authorities petitioners' witness namely Ram Kripal has not stated that Raja Sahab is in possession over the land in dispute but Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation has misread the oral evidence adduced by petitioners' witnesses Ram Kripal. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 was held to be disabled person in view of the provision contained under Section 157 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, as such the same will operate as res judicata in the consolidation proceeding. He further submitted that after adjudication of the claim under Section 240-H of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, no claim was raised by respondent Nos.3 and No.4 till 1972 when the consolidation intervened in the village in question. He further submitted that impugned judgment passed by Deputy Director of consolidation and Settlement Officer of Consolidation are wholly illegal as such, the same are liable to be set aside and judgment of Consolidation Officer be affirmed. He placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 1114 Sukhram Singh and another Vs. Smt. Harbheji as well as A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 94 Mirdad and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others in support of his argument. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 submitted that respondent nos.3 & 4 are in possession over the land in dispute since before 30 years from the date of filing of objection under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act that is before date of vesting, as such, they became Sirdar of the land in dispute. He further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is not a disabled person and order passed in the proceeding under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would not operate as res-judicata in the subsequent title proceeding under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act. He next submitted that the dispute under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer as the Compensation Officer, as such, the same will not come in the way of Consolidation Courts to decide the title dispute according to the evidence adduced before the Consolidation Officer rather on the basis of adjudication took place under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the first revision filed by respondent nos.3 & 4 against the earlier order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 3.7.1972 has held that Additional Divisional Officer has exercised his power as Compensation Officer and not as Judicial Officer as such the same will not operate as res-judicata in Consolidation proceeding, the aforementioned judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7.7.1973 has not been challenged by the petitioners before any Court, as such, the finding recorded under the earlier revisional judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7.7.1973 is binding on the Courts as well as the parties. He next submitted that in the year 1967 petitioners have filed a suit for eviction of the respondents from the land in dispute before the revenue Court under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but the same was abated due to consolidation operation took place in the village in question. He further submitted that theory of separation setup by the petitioner no.1 is for the purposes of the case as age of Santbux Singh being 40 years in the year 1973 indicate that he was born after execution of patta in the year 1929. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by respondent nos.1 & 2, as such, no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the judgement passed by full Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1967 RD 440 (Maqbool Raza Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow & others as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1969 RD 165, Sukhram Singh vs. Smt. Harbheji in order to demonstrate that the Consolidation Officer are competent to look into the question as to who is Adhivasi & thereafter Sirdar in spite of the adjudication took place under Section 240-J of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that in view of entry of 1356 fasli & 1359 fasli, the right & title of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be negatived in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 54 Amba Prasad Vs. He further submitted that in view of entry of 1356 fasli & 1359 fasli, the right & title of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be negatived in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 54 Amba Prasad Vs. Mahaboob Ali Shah and others as well as A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 466 Smt.Sonawati and others vs. Sri Ram and others. 8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that the plot in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioner no.1 as bhumidhar and the name of respondent no.3 was recorded as Asami in the basic year of the consolidation operation. There is also no dispute about the fact that the objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.3 for recording his name as Sirdar after expunging the entry of Class 7/ Asami in respect to the plot in question has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer directing that respondent no.3 shall be recorded as Asami and not as Sirdar. There is also no dispute about the fact that in appeal filed by respondent nos.3 & 4, the order of Consolidation Officer was set aside and respondent nos.3 & 4 was ordered to be recorded as Sirdar after expunging the entry of Jaman-7 from revenue records. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of Section 240-G & 240-H of Chapter IX-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will be relevant for perusal, which are as under: Conferment of Sirdari rights on Adhivasi "240G. Filing of objections. - Any person interested or the State Government may in the manner prescribed file before the Compensation Officer an objection upon such statement within the period of one month from the date of its publication. 240H. Disposal of Objections. - (1) Except as provided in sub-ordered to record the name-section (2), the Compensation Officer shall after hearing the parties, if necessary, on the objections filed under Section 240- G, dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed. 240H. Disposal of Objections. - (1) Except as provided in sub-ordered to record the name-section (2), the Compensation Officer shall after hearing the parties, if necessary, on the objections filed under Section 240- G, dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed. (2) Where the objection filed under sub-section (1)- (a) is that the land is not land referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 240-A the Compensation Officer shall frame an issue to that effect and refer it for disposal to the Court which would have jurisdiction to decide a suit under Section 229-B read with Section 234-A in respect of the land and thereupon all the provisions relating to the hearing and disposal of such suits shall apply to the reference as if it were suit; (b) involves a question of title and such question has not already been determined by a competent court, the Compensation Officer shall, [except in cases in which Section 240-HH applies] refer the question for determination to the [court of competent jurisdiction]. Explanation. - Whether a person is or is not an adhivasi shall not be deemed to raise a question of title within the meaning of this clause. (3) [The court of competent jurisdiction] shall determine the question referred to him under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) in the manner prescribed and his decision thereon shall be final." The Chapter IX of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was inserted by Uttar Pradesh Act No.20 of 1954. 11. In the instant matter order sheet of the proceeding under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which took place between 12.2.1957 to 12.8.1957 will be also relevant for perusal, which are as under: Issues (1) Whether the objections suffers under disability provided under section 157 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. (2) Whether the order objections we re Adhisasis and have become Sirdar of the land, in dispute. S.d. Illegible S.D.O. 22-8-57" 12. The perusal of the relevant portion of the order of Additional S.D.O. Meja, Allahabad dated 13.8.1958 in Suit No.191 of 1957-1958 under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are also relevant for perusal, which is as under: "In the Court of Addl. S.D.O. Meja, Allahabad. Suit NO.191 of 57-58 under Section 240G. Village-Patkha Bagna Pargana Khairagarh, Tahsil Meja, District- Allahabad. Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar Vs. S.D.O. Meja, Allahabad. Suit NO.191 of 57-58 under Section 240G. Village-Patkha Bagna Pargana Khairagarh, Tahsil Meja, District- Allahabad. Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar Vs. Aditya Prasad Decided on 13.5.1958 Copy of order In the court of Shri Chauhal Singh Additional S.D.O. Meja Case No.191 of V. Patkha Bangna Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar vs. Aditya Prasad and Others This is an objection ..................................................………… Rani Sahiba's case therefore fully covered under Sub-Section (a) of Section 157 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act under separation. She is entitled to its benefit. Issue no.I is therefore decided in the affirmative. Issue No.2:- Since the applicant objector has been adjudged to be entitled to the benefit under Section 157 (a) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the occupants of her lands is not acquire Adhivasi rights but would be Assamis under Section 21 (h) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the issue is decided accordingly. I, therefore, allow this objection of Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar and order that the names of opposite party be expunged from Adhivasi now Sirdar Khatas and they be entered as sub-tenants. Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar would not be entitled to any compensation. ……………………………… . would be cancelled ………………….may be restored to ……..Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar according to the entry of 1362 F. Sd/- Chauhal Singh Add. S.D.O. Meja 13.8.1958 13. The ratio of law of full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Avdhesh Singh (Supra) will be also relevant. Paragraph no.12 of the judgment is as under: "12. My answer to the first four questions referred to us are as follows:-- (1) Finality of Compensation Statement under Section 240-J, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act extinguishes the rights and title of the land-holder and the land-holder is debarred from showing in collateral or separate proceedings that the land is not held by an Adhivasi, except in cases where the provisions of the Act have not been followed or where the Compensation Statement has been prepared in disregard of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure (Katikara Chintamani Dora v. Guatreddi Annamanaidu MANU/SC/0336/1973 : [1974]2SCR655 . If the requirements of the Act have not been complied with or the fundamental principles of judicial procedure have been disregarded, the Compensation Statement signed and sealed by the Compensation Officer under Section 240-J (2) of the Act can be assailed in collateral proceedings. If the requirements of the Act have not been complied with or the fundamental principles of judicial procedure have been disregarded, the Compensation Statement signed and sealed by the Compensation Officer under Section 240-J (2) of the Act can be assailed in collateral proceedings. (2) The Compensation Statement signed and sealed under Section 240-J (2) of the Act is final between the land-holder and the State alone. (3) The Compensation Statement amounts to an adjudication of title between the land-holder and the person claiming Adhivasi rights and the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata will apply only to an Adhivasi who has been a party to proceedings consequent on an objection of the nature contemplated by Section 240-H (2) (a) of the Act. (4) The land-holder against whom Compensation Statement has become final and who has received compensation has no locus standi to reagitate his rights in respect of the land in question." 14. The perusal of Paragraph no.12 (3) of the judgment rendered in Awadhesh Singh (Supra) as quoted above, demonstrates that the compensation statement amounts to adjudication of title between the land holder and the person claiming Adhivasi right and principles of res-judicata and constructive res-judicata will apply only to Adhivasi who was party to proceedings. 15. The perusal of order sheet of case under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as judgment passed by the Additional S.D.O. dated 13.8.1958 passed in Suit No.191 of 1957-58 fully demonstrate that issues were framed, reference was made, objections were filed by respondent nos.3 & 4 as well as evidences were adduced by both parties including revenue entry of 1356 fasli, 1359 fasli, 1363 fasli, accordingly, Additional S.D.O. Meja, Allahabad has held that respondent nos.3 & 4 are entitled to be recorded as Asami & claim for Sirdari right of respondent nos.3 & 4 was rejected. 16. On the basis of the order dated 13.8.1958, which had attained finality, the petitioner no.1 remained recorded as bhumidhar even in the basic year of the consolidation operation i.e. 1971. 17. In view of the paragraph no.12 (3) of the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Awadesh Singh (supra), the judgment dated 15.8.1958 passed under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will operate as res-judicata in the consolidation proceeding. 18. 17. In view of the paragraph no.12 (3) of the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Awadesh Singh (supra), the judgment dated 15.8.1958 passed under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will operate as res-judicata in the consolidation proceeding. 18. So far as the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 that in view of the finding recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the earlier remand order dated 7.7.1973 that judgment dated 13.8.1958 passed under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will not operate as res-judicata in consolidation proceeding cannot be accepted in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in JT 1996 (1) SC 471, Preetam Singh (Dead) by Lrs & Others Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation & Others. Paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the judgment rendered in Preetam Singh (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which are as under: "5. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. We can safely say on the strength of the two precedents of the Court in Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand : [1977] 2 SCR 973 and Smt. Sukhrani (dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. Hari Shankar and Ors. : [1979]3 SCR 671 that the appellant should succeed. In the former case this Court expressed its view that "the remand order by the High Court is a finding at an intermediate stage of the same litigation. The appeal before the Supreme Court is from the suit as a whole and therefore, the entire subject matter is available for adjudication before it.... Otherwise the whole lis for the first time came to the Supreme Court and the High Court's finding at an intermediate stage does not prevent examination of the position of law by the Supreme Court. Intermediate stages of the litigation and orders passed at those stages have a provisional finality.... Otherwise the whole lis for the first time came to the Supreme Court and the High Court's finding at an intermediate stage does not prevent examination of the position of law by the Supreme Court. Intermediate stages of the litigation and orders passed at those stages have a provisional finality.... The contention barred before the High Court is still available to be canvassed before this Court when it seeks to pronounce finally on the entirety of the suit...." In the later case this Court expressed the view "that though a decision given at an earlier stage of the suit will bind the parties at a later stage of the same suit, it is equally well settled that because a matter has been decided at an earlier stage by an interlocutory order and no appeal has been taken there from or no appeal did lie, a higher court is not precluded from considering the matter again at a later stage of the same litigation." 6. When the matter was in revision before the Assistant Director (Consolidation), he had the entire matter before him and his jurisdiction was unfettered. While in seisin of the matter in his revisional jurisdiction, he was in complete control and in position to test the correctness of the order made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) effecting remand. In other words, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the Assistant Director (Consolidation) could examine the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer as to the abandonment of the land in dispute by those tenants who had been recorded at the crucial time in the Khasra of 1359 Fasli. That power as a superior court the Assistant Director (Consolidation) had, even if the remand order of the Settlement Officer had not been specifically put to challenge in separate and independent proceedings. It is noteworthy that the Court of the Assistant Director (Consolidation) is a court of revisional jurisdiction otherwise having suo moto power to correct any order of the subordinate officer. In this situation the Assistant Director (Consolidation) should not have felt fettered in doing complete justice between the parties when the entire matter was before him. The war of legalistics fought in the High Court was of no material benefit to the appellants. A decision on merit covering the entire controversy was due from the Assistant Director (Consolidation)." 19. In this situation the Assistant Director (Consolidation) should not have felt fettered in doing complete justice between the parties when the entire matter was before him. The war of legalistics fought in the High Court was of no material benefit to the appellants. A decision on merit covering the entire controversy was due from the Assistant Director (Consolidation)." 19. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order has recorded finding that from the record of the proceeding it is not established that judgment dated 13.8.1958 under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was passed by competent authority from the order sheet of the proceedings as well as the judgment dated 13.8.1958 passed in Suit No.191 of 1957-58, under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which is quoted above in the earlier part of this judgment fully demonstrates that each & every requirement Section 240-H of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are fulfilled, as such, impugned judgment passed by revisional Court is wholly illegal. The appellate Court has also passed the impugned judgment contrary to the ratio of law laid down by full Bench of this Court in Awadhesh Singh (supra). 20. The full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Maqbool Raza (supra) & judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukh Ram (supra) cited by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4 will not apply in the instant matter as there was proper compliance of Section 240-H of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the instant matter and in the full Bench decision of this Court in Awadhesh Singh (supra) the full Bench decision of Maqbool Raza (supra) was taken into consideration. 21. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment dated 25.3.1975 passed by respondent no.2/ Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation & judgment dated 9.8.1978 passed by respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 22. The writ petition stands allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.10.1974 is maintained by which basic year entry was maintained. 23. No order as to costs.