VIKRAM PRASAD Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short DDC), Azamgarh dated 24-10-1980 passed in Revision No. 66 under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. By the aforesaid judg ment, the DDC although has dismissed the revision as was filed by the Respondent No. 4 but at the same time, the land in dispute was declared to be Gaon Sabha property.

(2.) HEARD Aparna Burman, learned Advocate who appeared on behalf. of the petitioners. No one has appeared on be half of the opposite parties.

(3.) THE Consolidation Officer, by its order dated 27-12-1975 dismissed the ob jection of Respondent No. 4 against which the appeal filed by her was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolida tion but the matter having been taken up by the petitioners before the Revisional Court, the matter was remanded by the DDC by its judgment and order dated 6-11-1978 to the S. O. C. with certain direc tions to decide: (i) Whether Smt. Murati (Respondent No. 4) was unmarried or not when Smt. Pancho died (ii) when Smt. Pancho died. After the aforesaid remand the S. O. C. after hearing both the parties on 3-10-1979 dismissed the appeal of Respondent No. 4 after returning the following findings; (i) It is not proved that Smt. Murati is the daughter of Bideshi (ii) Smt. Pancho died before enforcement Act No. 20 of 1954 (iii) Smt. Murati was married prior to the enforce ment of Amendment Act, 1954.