RAM NARAIN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri S. D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 20.9.1975 (annexure 13) passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as order dated 22.2.1977 (annexure 14) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(3.) Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that when the consolidation proceedings started in the village it was found that the opposite party No.1 and 2 sons of Ram Dayal have got their names entered as co-tenants in respect of plot in Khata No.487. Objections were filed by the petitioner as provided under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1953") stating therein that opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 were not co-tenants and their plea of being co-tenants was rejected in a suit filed earlier under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the entry of co-tenancy of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are absolutely forged. A defence was taken by the opposite party No.1 and 2 in respect to the objections submitted by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolation Officer passed order dated 22.4.1975 stating therein that it is proper that issue of res judicata should be decided first. Against the aforesaid order dated 22.4.1975, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforesaid revision was dismissed on 22.6.1975. Subsequently, opposite party No.1 and 2 made an application for amendment in the objections filed by them and new plea was taken by them in the amendment application. Apart from the other pleas, a new plea was taken by way of amendment application in respect of adverse possession. The petitioners are submitted their objections against the aforesaid amendment application stating therein that the amendment application was filed in a mala fide manner and in order to set up a new case. The Consolation Officer vide its order dated 29.9.1975 allowed only certain amendments made in the amendment application. Other amendments made in the amendment application were rejected. Apart from the same, the impleadment of one Smt. Saraswari was also allowed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Consolation Officer dated 20.09.1975, a revision was preferred by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The same was dismissed by him vide order dated 22.02.1977.Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.