DEVI PRASAD Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh for the Respondents.

(2.) Learned Counsel submits that the proceedings resulted in passing of the order dated 20.4.2005 that are protected under Section 6A of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. He submits that it is a clear case of undisputed succession/undisputed mutation to which Ram Autar the contesting Respondent was a party and, therefore, the proceedings will be presumed to be in accordance with the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have passed the impugned order treating the proceedings to be without jurisdiction and calling upon the Petitioners to file an objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. He contends that once the claim of the Petitioners for getting their names mutated was undisputed by Ram Autar, then there was no occasion for any objection being entertained or any dispute being raised in this regard. Accordingly, it is Ram Autar who ought to have filed objections if aggrieved against the recording of the names of the Petitioners.

(3.) The appeal filed by the Respondents was held to be non-maintainable but the Settlement Officer Consolidation erroneously observed that the order passed on 20.4.2005 shall remain stayed on administrative grounds. The Petitioners filed a revision against the said order whereas the contesting Respondent filed a revision against the original order dated 20.4.2005. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has set-aside the order dated 20.4.2005 and has allowed the parties to file objections under Section 9A(2) as and when the proceedings under Section 9 are undertaken. Sri R.C. Singh states that this approach is erroneous in law.