HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 21
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 525 of 2013
Petitioner :- Nuruddeen
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambrish Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
"The provision of presumption is provided under Section 114 of Evidence Act, which contains some illustrations also. The said section along with illustrations (e) & (f) is quoted below:
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular case;"
"20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices."
The matter in the instant case relates to Gata No. 940/1( new no. 590/812) area 0.06 acre and plot no. 1367M (new no. 66/14) area 0.15 acre, which were entered as banjar and Nai parti in the revenue records. In the impugned order it is mentioned that Pradhan supported the respondent no. 3 Gaon Sabha property is not personal property of Pradhan.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay Bhusan, learned Additional C.S.C.
Order Date :- 4.9.2013