SUDHIR KUMAR GOSWAMI Vs. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a contest between the Petitioner, who is son of the Respondent No. 2 and brother of Respondent No. 3. The contest is with regard to an agricultural holding recorded in the name of the father, Respondent No. 2 which has been alienated by him through a sale-deed in favour of Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner, objects to the same on the ground that the land in dispute was held in representative capacity by Respondent No. 2 on behalf of the entire joint family and, therefore, he had No. individual authority of alienation particularly with regard to the share of the Petitioner.

(2.) The legal battle commenced when the vendee - Respondent No. 4 moved an application for mutation under Section 12 of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Needless to mention that the village was under consolidation operations and, therefore, such transfer of rights are to be recorded under the provisions of the said Act. The application was accompanied by the sale-deed and on coming to know of the said proceedings, an application was filed by the Petitioner before the Consolidation Officer, who is the competent authority, praying for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings to allow him to lodge his objections. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.11.2009 called upon the Petitioner - applicant to file his evidence in support of his claim for impleadment and only then he would be allowed to be impleaded. The Petitioner claims to have moved his Affidavit in support of the said objection on 20.11.2009 along with an another detailed objection who has also been noticed by the Consolidation Officer, who passed the order on the same day rejecting the impleadment of the Petitioner.

(3.) The Petitioner also prayed for time to file a revision before the Consolidation Officer which was rejected. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved a revision which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.5.2011 holding that the Petitioner was neither a proper nor a necessary party in the proceedings under Section 12 of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was held by the revising authority that since the revision was against an interlocutory order, therefore, it was not maintainable.