SHOABA Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate dispute between a mother and her daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, during the pendency of the case which has been restored, is an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. Sri Shukla submits that as a matter of fact fraud was played on the petitioner and on the basis of the alleged compromise, the respondent - daughter has succeeded in getting her name mutated. He, therefore, submits that the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted. Sri Shukla has relied on the judgment in the case of Suryanath Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1688.

(2.) SRI P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondent - Caveator, submits that the facts as disclosed indicate that the name of the answering respondent, after the death of her father, came to be recorded in the year 1997. The appeal against the said order came to be filed by the petitioner in the year 2010. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer before whom the matter, according to the respondents, proceeded ex-parte and the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 25.11.2010. The respondents moved a restoration application, which was allowed on 8.9.2011.

(3.) THE judgment, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner itself in paras 15 and 16, holds that once a notification has been issued under Section 6 of the Act, no proceeding through an appeal would be maintainable. In view of this settled position of law, and being a natural consequence of the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, the appeal itself was not maintainable and, therefore, any proceeding arising out the said appellate order was also without jurisdiction.