LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-190

SANT BUX SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

Decided On July 29, 2010
SANT BUX SINGH Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition was filed by the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1082 (Cons.) of 2005 Sant Bux Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation with the prayer to recall the Judgment and order passed in the Writ Petition dated 3rd July, 2006 by this Court.

(2.) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the prayer to set aside the orders dated 12.03.1999 passed by the C.O. (Consolidation Officer) rejecting his Objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), 30.08.2003 passed by the S.O.C. (Settlement Officer Consolidation) dismissing the Appeal and also another order passed by the D.D.C. (Deputy Director of Consolidation) dated 23.07.2005 dismissing the Revision also.

(3.) Undisputed facts of the case are that one Garibe S/O Jodha was recorded tenure-holder of Plot Nos. 56, 60 and 45 in the basic year in revenue record when the Consolidation operation was started in the area where this land situated. In the record on land of Plot Nos. 56 and 45 name of Garibe was recorded as sole tenure-holder while on the land of Plot No. 60 his name was recorded as co-sharer along with other tenure-holders. Garibe S/O Jodha had died on 05.05.1985. Sant Bux Singh, the petitioner his Nephew i.e. Son of real Brother of Garibe while respondent No. 2, Smt. Bindeshwari is daughter's married daughter of Garibe. Petitioner claimed himself by filing objection under Section 9 of the C.H. Act entitled to be recorded tenure holder on the land of Garibe on the basis that no other male member in the family of Garibe except him surviving. Later on he also claimed by amendment in objection that he is entitled to get recorded his name in the revenue record on the basis of last Will executed by Garibe on 28.04.1985. This prayer of amendment in Objection was earlier rejected by the C.O. and also by the S.O.C. in Appeal but later on in Revision, D.D.C. had allowed it and permitted to amend his Objections as prayed.