LAWS(ALL)-1990-12-11

FIRANGI SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

Decided On December 14, 1990
FIRANGI SINGH Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that a writ of Certiorari may be issued quashing the order dated 20-12-90 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure 14 to the petition) and the order dated 27-8-90 passed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (Annexure- 12 to the petition).

(2.) FACTUAL matrix reflects a chequered history of litigation. Plots in dispute contained in Chak Nos. 100 and 113 situate in village Parsurampur, Pergana Sikanderpur East. Tahsil Rasra, district Ballia, were recorded in basic year in the name of Smt. Dularia, the respondent no 3 as her transferable bhumidhari land. It was the case of the petitioners that they obtained bhumidbari land on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 16-9-1971 executed by Smt. Dularia, widow of Ram Nagina Singh, respondent no. 3, the recorded tenure holder. The petitioners made an application under Section 12 of the U P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act), with the prayer that their names may be entered as bhumidhars in place of the vendor Smt. Dularia and the name of vendor may be expunged.

(3.) THE petitioners contested the civil suit alleging that the sale deed was void, hence the civil court has no jurisdiction to enteriain the suit. THE learned Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction. Against that decree first appeal was preferred which also met the same fate. A second appeal was filed in this Court and the same was allowed on the ground that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioners was void, hence it can be ignored, in such matter not the civil court but consolidation authorities can decide the matter Special appeal was filed by respondent no. 3 before the Supreme Court That appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 2-3-1990 (vide Annexure-1). In that judgment it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court (page 45 of the paper book) as follows :