SHYAM LAL AND OTHERS Vs. PREMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10-5-2001, passed by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Roorkee, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, and judgment and order, dated 10-7-2002 An-nexure-10, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Roorkee (Hardwar) and prayed for quashing the impugned orders.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the petition are that the appeal filed by Smt. Premo, respondent, against the order dated 11.1-1996 was dismissed in default on 10-12-1997 by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Roorkee. Smt. Premo filed restoration application on 12.7.1999 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application was allowed by the impugned order, dated 10.5.2001 (Annexure-9) by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Roorkee on the ground that in the Consolidation Court, the rights of the parties have to be decided finally and no written objection has been filed by the opposite parties and the application was not opposed even orally hence the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) restored the appeal to its original number and recalled the order dated 10.12.1997 and ordered to hear the appeal on merits. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2001, passed by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the petitioners have filed the Revision No. 412 of 2001 under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Hardwar. The Deputy Director (Consolidation)/Collector Hardwar heard the revision and has also given a categorical finding that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has set aside the ex-parte order, dated 10.12.1997 by his order dated 10.5.2001 and he has also observed that rights of the parties have not been taken away for hearing. Even otherwise, he has ordered to rehear the appeal on merits and the order being interim, therefore, the revision is not maintainable and the D.D.C. by his order dated 10.7.2002 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by both the impugned orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The present writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the property in dispute was recorded in the name of one Nasibulla son of Gulamnavi as Bhumidhar with transferable right. The name of aforesaid Nasibulla was wrongly recorded in the revenue records. The father of the petitioner and his brother Surta filed a suit against aforesaid Nasibulla under section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. The suit was decreed by Sub-Divisional Officer Roorkee; but the name of Nasibulla could not be deleted from the revenue records, hence the petitioner filed objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under section 9-A of the Act. Finally, the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee by his order dated 11.1.1996 allowed the objections and the name of Nasibulla has been deleted from the revenue records on the basis of earlier order dated 10.7.1957 and the name of Smt. Premo, daughter of Surta, the respondent, and Sri Shyam Lal, Jogendras, Girwar Singh, Kabul Singh and Charan Singh, the petitioners have been recorded in Khata No. 124. Regarding the shares, Consolidation Officer also ordered that these persons shall have equal shares in the Khata, except those numbers which are out of consideration. Aggrieved by the order dated. 11.1.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer, respondent Smt. Premo preferred Appeal No. 556 of 96-97, Premo Vs. Shyam Lal- and others, before Settlement Officer Consolidation.