SHABBIR AHMAD Vs. ASSTT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner (Shabbir Ahmad since deceased, Parvez Ahmad his son) prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.5.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, allowing the revision filed by Siraj, father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in the proceedings under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short "the Act").

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the dispute relates to Khata No. 3 of village Bhiti, Khata No. 12 of village Pardaha and Khata No. 4 of village Shahadatpur, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, district Azamgarh. (hereinafter referred to as "the land in dispute"). In the basic year, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Abdul Halim s/o Abdul Aziz (since deceased). As Abdul Halim was dead and villages where the land in dispute are situated, were under the operation of the Act, the petitioner Shabbir Ahmad filed an application under Section 12 of the Act for mutation of his name and the names of Nisar and Siraj, two other sons of late Abdul Halim and brothers of the petitioner, as they were only heirs and successors of the deceased. To the application filed by the petitioner Siraj, father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an objection claiming that Khata No. 3 of village Bhiti was joint of him and Nlsar while two other Khatas, i.e., Khata No. 12 of the village Pardaha and Khata No. 4 of village Shahadatpur, referred to above, were owned exclusively by him on the basis of a Will dated 1.2.1969 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Abdul Halim in their favour. It may be noted that before the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, the contesting respondents applied for mutation of their names on the basis of the aforesaid Will under Section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act ; but as they have failed to prove the genuineness of the said Will, the same was held to be a forged document and the names of all the three sons of Abdul Halim were directed to be recorded by the Revenue Court. Even the revision filed against the order passed by the Revenue Court was dismissed by the Commissioner on 15.3.1973. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed two issues which were as follows :

(3.) THE writ petition was admitted on 31.7.1975 and notices were directed to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and some of the respondents have died whose heirs were substituted. The contesting respondents evaded service of the notice issued by this Court. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to serve the said respondents by substituted service. The notices issued by this Court were, under the orders of this Court, published in the newspapers and ultimately the service upon the contesting respondents was held sufficient. Inspite of service of notices upon the contesting respondents, none appeared on their behalf at the time of hearing. It may be noted that initially Mr. B. L. Yadav, Advocate, as he then was, put In his appearance and also filed counter -affidavit on behalf of the respondents in reply whereof a rejoinder -affidavit was also filed by the petitioner controverting and denying the facts stated in the counter -affidavit ; but after he was elevated to the Bench of this Court, no body put in appearance inspite of service of notice to engage another counsel upon the respondents.