ZINDA Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd. 7/6/2007 passed by the respondent no.1 (contained as Annexure No.9 to this writ petition).

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that Late Zinda (since deceased) filed objections under Sec. 9-A(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, vide its judgment and order dtd. 31/12/2001, dismissed the said objections. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was allowed vide judgment and order dtd. 27/3/2005. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.5-State preferred a revision being Revision No.220/2005 under Sec. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the revision, real brother of petitioner, namely Kalu was impleaded as respondent no.2. During the pendency of revision, on 19/9/2006, respondent no.5-State filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 and Sec. 151 of C.P.C. for substituting legal heirs of respondent no.2. Against the said substitution application, Late Shri Zinda (deceased) filed his objections stating that the respondent no.2 has died four years ago, prior to filing of revision, as such, the substitution application is barred by limitation. Respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dtd. 7/6/2007, has allowed the substitution application and has directed to bring on record the legal heirs of Late Sri Kalu in the memo of revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the order passed by respondent no.1 is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law as the date of death was not mentioned in the substitution application whereas in fact Kalu had passed away in the year 1995, prior to filing of revision. He would also contend that procedure prescribed has not been adhered to in filing the substitution application and the application ought to have been rejected by the respondent no.1.