Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48378 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 777 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rasool Mohammad And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shravasti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharvan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Shukla,Pankaj Gupta,Rahul Dwivedi Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharvan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of State- respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pankaj Gupta on behalf of respondent No.6 while Vakalatnama has been filed by Pt. S. Chandra on behalf of private respondent No.s 4 and 5. The vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the land situated at gata No.1267 Min. which was recorded in the name of Maharaja Pram Jeet Singh Talukedar Kapoorthala and was situated at Ghorma Parsiya, pargana Bahraich, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shrawasti. It has been submitted that the said Maharaja had sold gata No.1267 Min. in favour of predecessor-in-interest of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and according to the petitioner two bighas of the land were sold in favour of Mohd. Ali son of Nankau by a registered sale deed executed in 1952. It has been further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to two bighas of land sold to the petitioner on that two bigha land the petitioner claims to be in possession and further two bighas of the land in gata No.1267 Min. is the subject matter of the present dispute. It has been submitted that name of Chhedi the grand father of the petitioner was shown in the revenue records from the fasli year 1956 to 1959. Subsequently, during the consolidation operations in 1961-62 in proceedings under Section 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act name of Chhedi was recorded with regard to two bigha land and further his name also figured in Form Nos. 23, 41 and 45 of CH Act . 3. The present controversy had started before the Consolidation Officer where objection sunder Section 9 were filed by Lalji with regard to gata No.1267 Min. which was re-numbered as gata No.374. The proceedings concluded on the basis of a purported compromise between Chhedi and Lalji where name of Chhedi was deleted and name of Lalji was mutated in place of Chhedi vide order dated 6.1.1998. 4. The petitioners, who are successor-in-interest of Chhedi, preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the said appeal was allowed by means of order dated 29.11.2002 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding afresh after giving opportunity to rival parties to adduce oral and written evidences. 5. Before the Consolidation Officer, objections under Section 9 were filed by opposite party No.s 4 and 5 who in the meanwhile had been substituted in place of Lalji and by means of order dated 2.1.2024 again name of Chhedi was directed to be deleted from the records and in his place name of opposite party No.s 4 and 5 were directed to be included. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 2.1.2024 preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation who rejected the appeal by means of order dated 28.12.2024 and even the revision agaisnt the order dated 28.12.2024 has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 30.1.2025 and in the aforesaid circumstances the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the validity of the orders dated 2.1.2024, 28.12.2024 and 30.6.2025. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation revisited the entire controversy and examined entire evidence available on record. He has framed 11 issues and duly considered the evidence and has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner. It is important to note that Issue No.4 was whether Mohd. Ali son of Nankau was the same person as Chhedi son of Nankau and whether it was set up only to illegally encroach and capture the disputed land without adopting due process of law for obtaining an order of the competent authority. In this regard, the findings has been returned by Deputy Director of Consolidation and it has been stated that in 1952 during the first consolidation operations gata No.1267 Min. was recorded as a grove and consequently was excluded from the consolidation operations and accordingly he was of the view in the aforesaid circumstances that there was no occasion for the competent authority to make any entry in favour of Chhedi. Apart from the above, there is no other material available on record as to how name of Chhedi was mutated in the revenue records. He has further returned a finding that there is no evidence available on record which may indicate that Chhedi had been in continuous possession of the disputed land and also there is no material on record to justify his possession of the disputed land and accordingly found that in absence of any material available on record no finding could be returned in favour of the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss the revision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised before the authorities below. When a pointed query was made to the petitioner as to whether it is the case of the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse; opportunity was given to him to show from the record any other material which could indicate the same on which learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that all the material available with the petitioner was duly placed before the authorities below and has been examined by them. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported all the impugned orders and submits that they are the owners of the disputed land on account of the sale deed executed by Mohd. Ali son of Nankau by means of sale deed in 1952 and are duly entitled to be recorded as tenure holders. He further submits that the petitioner's attempt to illegally encroach upon two bighas of land has been rejected by the authorities below where he has failed to give any evidence or document or order on the basis of which their name was entered into the revenue records. He submits that even before the authorities below no material was placed to demonstrate that they had any right or interest over the property in disputed land apart from the other undisputed land which has been purchased by them through registered sale deed from the Maharaja. 10. Having considered the rival parties, it is noticed that before all the authorities below the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how he came into possession of the disputed land of gata No.1267 Min. Even a vain attempt was made to demonstrate that they are owners on the basis of adverse possession. In this regard, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that there is no evidence with regard to continuous possession over the disputed land and no order on record from which it can be shown that his name was legally mutated and entered into the revenue records. Apart from the above, there was a clear cut finding that there is no any order of any authority below which may indicate the manner in which the petitioner came to be recorded in the revenue records and accordingly in absence of any material we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the authorities below agaisnt the petitioner and in favour of the private respondents. Apart from the above, no material could be demonstrate even in the present writ petition which may enable us to interfere with the findings recorded by any of the authorities below. 11. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the orders impugned in this petition. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench