SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ramesh Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Brijesh Shukla for the caveator.

(2.) THE contention raised is that it was not a matter of uncontested succession empowering the consolidator under Section 6A of the 1953 Act to pass an order of mutation in favour of a person claiming entitlement through succession under Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. &L.R. Act, 1950.

(3.) SRI Ramesh Singh contends that the consolidator has proceeded on a wrong assumption and the stage of filing objections would arrive later on, as such he should have left the entries either as they were, or should have recorded the names of the petitioners as well.