# Krishnapal and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 468
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4950 of 1988
- **Bench:** A.P.Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishnapal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41594
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Holding Act, Section 10 (2)-Notice to
declare
Surplus
land
issued-placing
reliance on report of lokpal-without
varify the actual date of death of original
tenure
holder-Sadashiv
and
Raghunandan-Petitioner 7 in number are
son of Sadashiv jointly possessed less
than 18 acre land-as per entry of Kitaab
Register, date of death of Sadashiv is
25.11.1975 and Raghunandan died later
on 12.02.1976 entries of family Register
admissible
in
evidence
u/s
74
of
evidence Act-during cross examination
Lekhpal admitted during long term of
posting of 7 years in villages in question
never seen both of them alive-burden of
proof lies upon state-who failed to
discharge
the
same-held-orders
declaring surplus land, as well as of the
appellants authority Quashed

Held: Para 21 & 24

The entire case of the State is, therefore,
based on the alleged information of Mr.
S.L. Tiwari and on the two receipts dated
19.1.1976
and
18.2.1986.
The
said
receipts do not establish the date of
death of Sadashiv or Raghu Nandan. The
manner in which a deposit confers a
right of bhumidhari tenure under the
provisions of the then existing Section
134 to 137 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, has
been dealt with in the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Deo Nandan
and another Vs. Ram Saran and others,
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 440. The said
proceedings are a certification of the
change of tenure and they do not relate
to the date of death or the date of actual
physical presence of the concerned
person. The reliance placed on the said
receipts, therefore, do not conclude or
establish the exact date of death of the
tenure holders. The Prescribed Authority
as well as the Commissioner both
committed an error by placing heavy
reliance on the said receipts and by
discarding
a
documentary
evidence
which was substantial proof, namely the
family register extract, indicating the
exact date of birth corroborated by the
mutation order in their favour. An
evidence which was established and
proved in law could not have been
discarded on the strength of a mere
information, the source whereof was
neither known nor proved or also on the
basis of receipts of deposit which did not
indicate the date of death. The said
evidence of the State, therefore, having
failed to establish the date of death of
Sadashiv
and
Raghu
Nandan,
the
issuance of the notices on the mere
information of Mr. S.L. Tiwari was
absolutely
erroneous
and
remains
uncorroborated.

The Prescribed Authority has failed to
take notice of the statement of Madhav
Prasad, Lekhpal which itself narrates
that he had not made any inquiry prior to
the preparation of the Ceiling Forms and,
therefore, in the absence of any such
prior inquiry there was no occasion for
calling upon the petitioners to file any
objections. The initiation of the notice
itself was absolutely unfounded and
based on no evidence in relation to the
date of death of Sadashiv.
Case law discussed
(2000) 3 SCC 440
2 All] Krishnapal and others V. State of U.P. and others
469

## Text

468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P.SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4950 of 1988

Krishnapal and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.N. Bhargava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of ceiling on Land
Holding Act, Section 10 (2)-Notice to
declare
Surplus
land
issued-placing
reliance on report of lokpal-without
varify the actual date of death of original
tenure
holder-Sadashiv
and
Raghunandan-Petitioner 7 in number are
son of Sadashiv jointly possessed less
than 18 acre land-as per entry of Kitaab
Register, date of death of Sadashiv is
25.11.1975 and Raghunandan died later
on 12.02.1976 entries of family Register
admissible
in
evidence
u/s
74
of
evidence Act-during cross examination
Lekhpal admitted during long term of
posting of 7 years in villages in question
never seen both of them alive-burden of
proof lies upon state-who failed to
discharge
the
same-held-orders
declaring surplus land, as well as of the
appellants authority Quashed

Held: Para 21 & 24

The entire case of the State is, therefore,
based on the alleged information of Mr.
S.L. Tiwari and on the two receipts dated
19.1.1976
and
18.2.1986.
The
said
receipts do not establish the date of
death of Sadashiv or Raghu Nandan. The
manner in which a deposit confers a
right of bhumidhari tenure under the
provisions of the then existing Section
134 to 137 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, has
been dealt with in the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Deo Nandan
and another Vs. Ram Saran and others,
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 440. The said
proceedings are a certification of the
change of tenure and they do not relate
to the date of death or the date of actual
physical presence of the concerned
person. The reliance placed on the said
receipts, therefore, do not conclude or
establish the exact date of death of the
tenure holders. The Prescribed Authority
as well as the Commissioner both
committed an error by placing heavy
reliance on the said receipts and by
discarding
a
documentary
evidence
which was substantial proof, namely the
family register extract, indicating the
exact date of birth corroborated by the
mutation order in their favour. An
evidence which was established and
proved in law could not have been
discarded on the strength of a mere
information, the source whereof was
neither known nor proved or also on the
basis of receipts of deposit which did not
indicate the date of death. The said
evidence of the State, therefore, having
failed to establish the date of death of
Sadashiv
and
Raghu
Nandan,
the
issuance of the notices on the mere
information of Mr. S.L. Tiwari was
absolutely
erroneous
and
remains
uncorroborated.

The Prescribed Authority has failed to
take notice of the statement of Madhav
Prasad, Lekhpal which itself narrates
that he had not made any inquiry prior to
the preparation of the Ceiling Forms and,
therefore, in the absence of any such
prior inquiry there was no occasion for
calling upon the petitioners to file any
objections. The initiation of the notice
itself was absolutely unfounded and
based on no evidence in relation to the
date of death of Sadashiv.
Case law discussed
(2000) 3 SCC 440
2 All] Krishnapal and others V. State of U.P. and others
469
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. All the seven petitioners are the
sons of Late Sri Sadashiv, resident of
Village Bardwara, Tehsil Karvi, District
Banda who have come up questioning the
correctness of the order of the Prescribed
Authority dated 31.3.1986 and of the
learned Commissioner in appeal dated 4th
of February, 1988 under the provisions of
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act.

2. A notice was issued under Section
10(2) of the Act proposing to declare
13.41 acres of land surplus in the hands of
the tenure holders. The petitioner Krishna
Pal and others filed objections which was
pursued by one of the petitioners Krishna
Pal. The authorities proceeded to record
the statements of the revenue officials
and, thereafter the prescribed authority
proceeded to hold that the land proposed
as surplus deserves to be declared as such.
The petitioners were called upon to offer
their choices under the order dated
31.3.1986.

3. An appeal was preferred by the
petitioners and the order of the prescribed
authority was affirmed on 4th February,
1988. The present writ petition was
instituted and an interim order was
granted on 18.3.1988 restraining the
respondents
from
dispossessing
the
petitioners from the land in dispute. The
writ petition was admitted on 12.5.1988
whereafter a counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the State to which a
rejoinder has also been filed by the
petitioners. An interim order was further
passed by this Court on 19.5.1988 in
favour of the petitioners. The rejoinder
affidavit brings on record a judgment
dated 20.6.1998 by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate in a suit under Section 229-B
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. A copy of the
said rejoinder was served on the learned
Standing Counsel as per endorsement
thereon on 12.8.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends
that
the
impugned
order
proceeds on erroneous assumption of
facts and on a misconstruction and
misconstruing of the evidence on record
as a result whereof, both the authorities
have arrived at a wrong conclusion. Not
only this, the law which has been applied
is on the basis of wrong facts and as such
the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside as there is no surplus land available
in the hands of the petitioners.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has
taken a stand that the findings recorded
are based on evidence and, therefore, this
Court may not interfere with these
findings of fact in relation to the date of
death of Sadashiv and Raghu Nandan.

The facts in short are that there is an
undisputed pedigree as noted below:

Dwarika Prasad

Sadashiv

 Raghu Nandan

1)- Krishna Pal
2)- Gomti Narain
3)- Tilak Narain
4)- Ram Prakash
5)- Madan Mohan
6)- Jay Narain
7)- Ram Badan

6. Sadashiv and Raghu Nandan were
real brothers, who were admittedly the
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
recorded tenure holders of the entire land.
The date on which the tenure has to be
calculated is 24th January, 1971 and for
some transactions dated 9.6.1973. These
are the two dates on which the land has to
be determined in the hands of a tenure
holder and which cannot exceed 18 acres
of land in the irrigated sense. There is no
dispute that both the brothers were alive
in 1971 and 1973 respectively and,
therefore, both of them had equal shares
in the holding. The entire holding in the
irrigated sense between two brothers is
reported to be 32.29 acres. If the said land
is divided into half, both the brothers
Sadashiv and Raghu Nandan receive less
than 18 acres individually and, therefore,
they could not have been proceeded
against for holding surplus land in respect
of the shares that would come to them in
terms of calculations under the Ceiling
Act.

7. The dispute arose when one Mr.
S.L. Tiwari the Sub Divisional Magistrate
of Karvi during his tenure received
information through reliable sources, that
Raghu
Nandan
who
was
issueless,
predeceased his brother Sadashiv in the
year 1975 or 1976 and as a consequence
thereof Sadashiv became owner and
recorded tenure holder of the entire land.
Sadashiv
also
reportedly
died
and,
therefore, notices were issued to the sons
of Sadashiv mentioned in the pedigree
herein above, calling upon them to show
cause as to why an area of 13.41 acres of
land be not declared as surplus. This
information to Mr. S.L. Tiwari was
reportedly received after almost 10 years
of the death of the two brothers, the
source whereof is not disclosed but is
alleged to be reliable. The notice
proceeded on the presumption that after
the enforcement of the Act, the younger
brother Raghunandan predeceased his
elder brother. As a result, the elder
brother became owner of the entire land
having succeeded Raghunandan who died
issueless. Thus a according to the State
Sadashiv had land in access of 18 acres
and therefore, the notices were issued.

8. Sri Krishna Pal S/o Late Sadashiv
and his brothers filed their objections and
a true copy of the same is brought on
record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition
dated 3.6.1985. The matter proceeded and
the statements of the Revenue Officials
including Madhav Prasad and Ram
Lakhan
have
been
recorded.
The
statement of the then Kanungo was also
recorded. The petitioners filed copies of
the extract of the family register prepared
under
the
provisions
of
the
U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed
thereunder and also led oral evidence. The
Prescribed Authority after assessing the
said evidence came to the conclusion that
Sadashiv was very much alive when the
Ceiling Act came into force and Raghu
Nandan had predeceased him. As a
consequence of Raghu Nandan having
predeceased Sadashiv, his entire land
became the holding of Sadashiv as Raghu
Nandan was issueless. For this the
prescribed authority relied on certain
deposits
made
on
19.1.1976
and
18.2.1976
by
Sadashiv
and
Raghu
Nandan respectively which were 20 times,
the revenue of certain part of the holding
in dispute for converting it into Bumidhari
tenure under the provisions of Section 134
to 137 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The
Prescribed Authority concluded that since
these deposits were made on 19.1.1976
and 18.2.1976 respectively, it appears that
the date of death as reflected by the
petitioners in their objections are not
correct and they had manipulated the date
2 All] Krishnapal and others V. State of U.P. and others
471
of death of their own father prior to the
death of Raghu Nandan by getting the
mutation order recorded incorrectly.

9. On the strength of the aforesaid
evidence
the
prescribed
authority
concluded
that
Raghu
Nandan
had
predeceased Sadashiv and, therefore,
Sadashiv was the sole tenure holder and
as such there was land surplus in his
hands.

10.

The
prescribed
authority
discarded the evidence of family register
produced by the petitioner on the ground
that the same was not proved by
producing the concerned Gram Panchayat
Adhikari who was the custodian of the
said register. The same was, therefore, not
found worth admitting in evidence.

11.

The
prescribed
authority
believed that the manner in which
mutation was carried out does not inspire
confidence and, therefore, the date of
deaths
mentioned
in
the
mutation
proceedings and recorded in the extracts
of Khatauni also do not help the objectors.
In effect the proceedings initiated on the
reliable information of the then prescribed
authority Mr. S.L. Tiwari after 10 years of
the death of the tenure holders was
believed to be true.

12. Having perused the entire
records including the counter affidavit
and the rejoinder filed on behalf of the
petitioners
the
central
issue
for
determination in this litigation is about the
date of death of the two brothers Sadashiv
and Raghu Nandan. The State led
evidence by calling upon their Lekhpals
and the statement of Madhav Prasad was
recorded.
Madhav
Prasad
was
the
concerned Lekhpal who prepared the
Ceiling Forms and submitted it to the then
Sub Divisional Officer, Shyam Lal
Tiwari. In his statement, which is
Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the said
Lekhpal states that he had prepared the
file on the asking of the said Sub
Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority.
He further states that it was Mr. S.L.
Tiwari who said that the father of the
petitioners Sadashiv was alive. He further
states that he had remained Lekhpal for
six years but he never saw Sadashiv or
Raghu Nandan alive and that the land was
in the possession of the petitioners. He
also stated that he did not carry out any
inquiry at all before submitting this report
to Mr. S.L. Tiwari, the then Prescribed
Authority and Mr. Ram Sajivan, the
Kanungo never went with him for enquiry
on the spot. This key witness of the State
has nowhere stated the exact date of death
of Sadashiv or Raghunandan.

13. The aforesaid statement of the
witness of the respondent State, who is
said to be the initiator of the proceedings,
itself indicates that there is no statement
about the date of death of Sadashiv or
Raghu Nandan by the said Lekhpal. Not
only this, he also categorically states that
he did not make any inquiry before
proceeding to submit the report. Apart
from this he further stated that he was
Lekhpal for six years of the said village
and he never saw Sadashiv and Raghu
Nandan alive.

14. A perusal of the said statement
of the Lekhpal who is the key witness of
the initiation of the proceedings as well as
the status of the tenure holders whether
they were dead or alive, does not in any
way establish or support the assumption
of Mr. S.L. Tiwari, the then prescribed
authority who is alleged to have received
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
some news from reliable sources. There is
no disclosure as to what was the reliable
source of information of Sri. S.L. Tiwari,
the then Sub Divisional Officer. The
impugned order neither discusses the
aforesaid aspect of the statement of the
Lekhpal nor does it indicate disclosure of
any relevant evidence as to the source of
information received by Mr. S.L. Tiwari
for initiating the proceedings.

15. In the absence of any such
material, either in the statement of the
Lekhpal or any evidence in relation to the
alleged information received by Mr. S.L.
Tiwari or its source the prescribed
authority appears to have proceeded to
draw conclusions on mere surmises and
against the weight of evidence on record.
The prescribed authority has not even
indicated
his
opinion
on
the
said
statement and has concluded that the
mutation was carried out in collusion with
the Officials. In my opinion, the aforesaid
conclusion is founded on surmises and
conjectures and against the weight of
evidence on record.

16. The second issue is with regard
to the date of death of Sadashiv recorded
as 25.11.1975 in the family register. A
family register is a public record in terms
of the Evidence Act inasmuch as the same
is prepared under the statutory provisions
of
Section
15
(xxiii)(e)
of
U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act read with Rule 2,
Rule 67, Rule 142 to 144 of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. The family
register is prepared under the Uttar
Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Maintenance
of Family Registers) Rules, 1970. It is to
be noted that Form (A) also records the
date of death of a family member. There
is yet another Form namely Form (D)
which is for registering the date of birth
and death. Both these Forms, therefore,
record the date of death of a person and
they are prescribed under the Rules.
Needless to say that the rules are framed
by the State Government and the registers
prescribed for particular purposes are
notified under the rules. Reference may
be had to Section 110 (vii) of the 1947
Act for the said purpose.

17. In my opinion, a presumption
has to be drawn in respect of the said
public document and it cannot be merely
disbelieved
if
the
Gram
Panchayat
Adhikari had not been produced to prove
it. The copy of the family register is a
public document and a presumption as to
its genuineness is accepted under Section
79 of the Indian Evidence Act. No doubt
was ever raised by the State of its
issuance
or
genuineness.
In
such
circumstances there was no occasion for
the petitioners to produce the Gram Vikas
Adhikari for proving a public document
maintained under rules and defined in
Section 74 of the Evidence Act. On the
contrary, the extract of the family register
was produced and filed by the petitioners,
and if the authority had any doubt about
it, it could have summoned the family
register as also the concerned Gram
Panchayat
Adhikari
to
satisfy
the
correctness or otherwise of the said
entries or in the alternative could have
called upon the State to produce it. The
petitioners, in my opinion, had discharged
their burden and the onus lay on the State
to disprove the same. The statements of
the revenue officials do not indicate any
denial of the aforesaid documents. The
State did not rebut the said evidence by
questioning the entry or issuance of the
extract by the competent authority. In
such a situation the prescribed authority
committed a manifest error by not
2 All] Krishnapal and others V. State of U.P. and others
473
accepting the date of death of Sadashiv as
25.11.1975 as indicated in the family
register and the revenue records. The
mutation orders that were in favour of the
petitioners were admitted to have been
recorded by the Lekhpal and Kanungo.

18. The petitioners had come out
with a clear case that Sadashiv had died
earlier on 25.11.1975 and Raghu Nandan
died later on 12.2.1976 as is evident from
the mutation orders entered in Form P.A.
11.

19. The respondent State has relied
on the deposit receipts dated 19.1.1976
and 18.2.1976 of 20 times of revenue in
the name of Sadashiv and Raghu Nandan
respectively. On the strength of these
receipts it was contended by the State that
both Sadashiv and Raghu Nandan were
alive and their deaths had not taken place
on the dates as mentioned by the
petitioners i.e. 25.11.1975 and 12.2.1976.
The prescribed authority has nowhere
recorded that the aforesaid receipts which
had been issued were upon deposits made
by
Sadashiv
and
Raghu
Nandan
themselves in person. No official was
produced to prove the said receipts. The
petitioners or their witnesses were never
put to cross-examination about any such
evidence. Apart from this merely because
the mutation order was carried out on the
same Form recording the date of death of
Sadashiv as 25.11.1975 and that of Raghu
Nandan 12.2.1976 simultaneously the
same cannot lead to the conclusion that it
was done collusively. Collusion has to be
established through actual evidence and
not by mere inference or bald allegations.

20. In order to prove collusion,
something more has to be indicated about
the overt and covert acts of the
authorities. The presumption, that the said
mutation was carried out with a view to
avoid the Ceiling proceeding is absolutely
misconceived and an additional reason for
this is that if according to the State both
Sadashiv and Raghu Nandan were alive
and their date of deaths had been wrongly
recorded, then there was no occasion to
issue any notice or take steps under the
Ceiling Act as both Sadashiv and Raghu
Nandan in their respective shares were
entitled to hold the entire land which
individually would be less than 18 acres
in their hands. In such a situation, if
Sadashiv
and
Raghu
Nandan
were
individually holding land, there was no
occasion for them to be a party to any
such attempt of collusion.

21. The entire case of the State is,
therefore,
based
on
the
alleged
information of Mr. S.L. Tiwari and on the
two
receipts
dated
19.1.1976
and
18.2.1986. The said receipts do not
establish the date of death of Sadashiv or
Raghu Nandan. The manner in which a
deposit confers a right of bhumidhari
tenure under the provisions of the then
existing Section 134 to 137 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, has been dealt with
in the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Deo Nandan and another Vs.
Ram Saran and others, reported in
(2000) 3 SCC 440. The said proceedings
are a certification of the change of tenure
and they do not relate to the date of death
or the date of actual physical presence of
the concerned person. The reliance placed
on the said receipts, therefore, do not
conclude or establish the exact date of
death
of
the
tenure
holders.
The
Prescribed Authority as well as the
Commissioner both committed an error
by placing heavy reliance on the said
receipts and by discarding a documentary
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
evidence which was substantial proof,
namely
the
family
register
extract,
indicating
the
exact
date
of
birth
corroborated by the mutation order in
their favour. An evidence which was
established and proved in law could not
have been discarded on the strength of a
mere information, the source whereof was
neither known nor proved or also on the
basis of receipts of deposit which did not
indicate the date of death. The said
evidence of the State, therefore, having
failed to establish the date of death of
Sadashiv and Raghu Nandan, the issuance
of the notices on the mere information of
Mr. S.L. Tiwari was absolutely erroneous
and remains uncorroborated.

22. The statement of the revenue
officials fails to point out the exact date of
death of Raghu Nandan or Sadashiv. In
the absence of any such positive material
there was absolutely no reason to
disbelieve the evidence about the date of
death as projected by the petitioners. The
burden is always on the State to prove a
fact in relation to the date of death which
was being inferred on the basis of the two
receipts referred to herein above. The
State, in my opinion, failed to discharge
that burden of fixing the date of death of
the
tenure
holders.
Conversely
the
petitioners had discharged their burden by
producing conclusive evidence about the
date of death namely their oral evidence
supported by documentary evidence in the
shape of a family register extract
maintained as a public document and the
orders of mutation under the provisions of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Having
discharged its burden, the onus stood
shifted on the State to disprove the same.
The State did not discharge its onus as
recorded herein above. Accordingly, the
State which was under an obligation to
prove its facts namely the contents of the
family register by leading evidence, there
was no occasion for the Prescribed
Authority or the Commissioner to have
rejected the claim of the petitioners. The
finding,
therefore,
recorded
by
the
prescribed authority on this score cannot
be sustained. The Commissioner has also
committed the same error by recording
that the petitioners did not lead any
evidence to support their contention in
relation to the date of death as indicated
above. The petitioners led oral evidence
as well as documentary evidence to
establish their claim which could not be
successively rebutted by the State. The
Commissioner, therefore, totally ignored
the aforesaid aspects of the matter and
thus arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

23. The learned Commissioner
instead of attending to these issues which
were raised in the appeal and have been
noted by him has simply reiterated all the
findings of the prescribed authority and
has affirmed the same. The entire inquiry
which has been made by the authorities
does not make out a case of any
reassessment of the land in the hands of
the petitioners that too even after 10 years
of the death of the tenure holders on the
strength of a mere hearsay information. In
my
opinion,
the
authorities
have
committed an error as pointed out herein
above and their conclusions are absolutely
erroneous. The order of the learned
Commissioner is equally bad for the
reasons for which the order of the
prescribed authority is infirm.

24. The Prescribed Authority has
failed to take notice of the statement of
Madhav Prasad, Lekhpal which itself
narrates that he had not made any inquiry
prior to the preparation of the Ceiling
2 All] Deena Nath and others V. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others
475
Forms and, therefore, in the absence of
any such prior inquiry there was no
occasion for calling upon the petitioners
to file any objections. The initiation of the
notice itself was absolutely unfounded
and based on no evidence in relation to
the date of death of Sadashiv.

25. The petitioners, in my opinion,
had conclusively proved that Raghu
Nandan died later on after the death of
Sadashiv. The petitioners accordingly
inherited the entire shares of Sadashiv to
the tune of 1/7th each and when Raghu
Nandan
died
thereafter
they
again
inherited his share accordingly. If the
aforesaid calculation is taken to be correct
then there is no surplus land in the hand
of the petitioners. The impugned orders,
therefore, in my opinion, being erroneous
are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
order of the prescribed authority dated
31.3.1986 and that of the learned
Commissioner dated 4.2.1988 hereby
quashed. The prescribed authority shall
accordingly, proceed to maintain the
revenue records in relation to the claim of
the petitioners and pass an appropriate
order to that effect in the light of the
conclusions
and
observations
hereinabove.

26. The writ petition is allowed with
no orders as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10166 of 2008

Deena Nath and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia
and others
 ...Proforma Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. J.P. Singh
C.S.C.

U.P. consolidation of Holding Act 1953-
Section 48-Revision-against the order.
passed
by
Settlement
officer
of
Consolidation by Setting aside the order
passed by Consolidation officer and
order of remand to decide as freshwhether Revision maintainable? held-
"yes".

Held: Para 31

In view of the foregoing discussions, we
are of the view that the order of the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation by
which appeals were finally decided was
not an interlocutory order and the
revision
under
Section
48
of
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was
clearly maintainable.

Our answers to the questions are as
follows:-

1) an order passed in appeal under
section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation deciding the appeal finally
by setting aside the order of the
Settlement Officer Consolidation and