Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/1 and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that present writ petition is being treated and decided only on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1/1 to 1/3, inasmuch as, vide order dated 25.08.2021, petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 5 has been dismissed as abated as well as petition on behalf of petitioner No. 4 has been dismissed as withdrawn. Apart from that petition on behalf of petitioner No. 6 has already been ordered to be dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 23.07.2019.

3. Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.08.1988 (Annexure-5) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai (in brevity 'S.O.C.') (respondent No. 2) and order dated 29.09.1989 (Annexure-6) passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent No. 1).

4. Present writ petition is arising out of a proceeding under section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'). In basic consolidation record, name of respondent No. 3 Chhotey Lal alias Chhutta (now deceased) was recorded over plots in question i.e. Plot Nos. 248, 250 and 251. Suraj Singh (petitioner No. 1) and Pancha (predecessor in interest of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6), who are cousin brothers, have filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming their right and title over the property in question on the basis of lease deed dated 20.06.1951 said to have been executed by Sri Raghubir Singh, the then Zamindar. In support of their case, petitioners have filed a copy of receipt of patta (lease) dated 20.06.1951 (Annexure-1) and produced some witnesses to prove their possession over the property in question. The Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.'), vide order dated 22.02.1977 (Annexure-4), has allowed the objection filed by Suraj Singh (petitioner No. 1) and Pancha (predecessor in interest of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6). Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 3 Chhotey Lal has filed appeal before the S.O.C., which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.1988 with an observation that alleged lease deed appears to be forged, which has been procured only for the purpose of creating an evidence in favour of the petitioners. It has further been observed that claim of the petitioners on the basis of long continuous possession is not corroborated by any documentary evidence. The D.D.C. has affirmed the order of the S.O.C., vide its order dated 29.09.1989.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner No. 1/1 to 1/3 submits that the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have illegally discarded claim of petitioners without reversing the finding given by the C.O. with respect to the possession over the plot in question. All the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner clearly make out his case qua his continuous possession over the property in question since the date of lease which was executed by Raghubir Singh, the then Zamindar, in favour of the petitioner No. 1. It is further submitted that the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have deciding the matter in a very cursory manner without examining the record and without considering the case of the petitioner qua his possession over the property in question. It is further submitted that the order passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. are illegal, unwarranted under law and are liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/1 contended that the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have given categorical finding that the alleged lease appears to be forged and there is no documentary evidence to prove continuous possession of the petitioners over the property in question. He has further contended that respondent No. 3 Chhotey Lal has been throughout in the possession over the property in question, whose name was recorded in the Basic Consolidation Record. There is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. warranting interference of this Court in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on board.

8. Petitioner is claiming his right and title over the property in dispute on the basis of lease deed dated 20.06.1951 said to have been executed by Raghubir Singh (the then Zamindar of the area). Copy of the receipt of alleged Patta (lease) dated 20.06.1951 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this petition. Perusal of aforesaid lease receipt reveals that the land was given only for a year i.e. 1359 Fasli. The relevant portion of the lease receipt with respect to the period is quoted below:-

"Time period one year for 1359 Fasli."

(English translation by Court)

9. There is no pleading by the petitioner that the aforesaid lease was further extended or fresh settlement was made with the petitioner after completion of the period of lease of one year.

10. With respect to genuineness of aforesaid lease receipt, the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have given concurrent finding that the said lease receipt appears to be a forged document created for the purpose of evidence in the present matter. There is no evidence on the record to prove that the aforesaid lease receipt was ever impleaded and name of lessees were ever recorded in the revenue record on the basis thereof.

11. Plea of petitioner qua continuous possession over the property in question has also been concurrently discarded by the S.O.C. as well as the D.D.C. It appears that in the alternative petitioner has tried to made out a case of adverse possession over the property in question. The S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have given categorical finding that there is no evidence on the record to prove continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the petitioner over the property in question. Even the irrigation receipt for successive continuous years were not in the name of the petitioner. It is further observed by the D.D.C. that the consolidation proceeding intervened in the year 1974 but there is no evidence on the record to prove his continuous possession till said date or he was ever recorded as a sub tenant in the revenue record before 1974.

12. Even otherwise, present petition on behalf of the petitioner, could not survive, inasmuch as, petitioner No. 1 and predecessor in interest of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are claiming their right and title on the basis of lease receipt dated 20.06.1951, meaning thereby, they have common source of title, therefore, once the petition is dismissed against petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, it would not be appropriate to upheld right and title of the petitioner No. 1, otherwise, it will amount to giving contradictory decisions in the same matter.

13. In this conspectus as above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate the submissions advanced by him while assailing the orders passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C., who have concurrently held that the lease dated 20.06.1951 appears to be forged and petitioner has failed to prove his continuous possession over the property in question. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. warranting indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. Present writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.