KESHAV DAYAL Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Sri Nirmal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Birendra Narain Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parites.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.02.1976 passed in Case No.581 under Section 9-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Consolidation Officer, by means of which the objection filed by the respondent no.4 was allowed and the names of opposite party nos. 4 to 7 has been directed to be recorded as co-tenure holders and order dated 29.09.1976 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal No.829 filed under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and order dated 21.01.1987 passed on revision No.15/1344/36 under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute relates to Khata No.12, which was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners as Khudkasht in the 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli. Therefore it cannot be divided and recorded in the name of the co-sharers of the other properties. He further submitted that merely because Vidyadhar was appointed Lambardar and the power of attorney was in his favour, the land recorded as Khudkasht in the name of the petitioners cannot be divided. His further submission is that without considering the objection of the petitioners, the objection of the opposite party no.4 has been allowed and the property has been divided. The appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also rejected the revision without considering the aforesaid facts. Therefore the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the writ petition is liable to be allowed with cost.