REET RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri S.S. Sisodiya and Sri Saini, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Counsel agree that the petitions be disposed of finally at this stage itself.

(2.) These two writ petitions have been filed by persons claiming themselves to be the Vendees of late Moti Ram. They contend that they had purchased the property through a sale-deed dated 9.12.1986. Upon having purchased the land, they claimed to have applied for mutation and the Tahsildar passed an order on 7.8.1987 against which a restoration application was filed by late Moti Ram. The said restoration was allowed against which the Petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Land Revenue Act, 1901. During the pendency of the said appeal, the consolidation operations set in and, therefore, the said proceedings abated.

(3.) It appears that objections were filed under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the matter proceeded. The Petitioners also appear to have filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for mutation. The application under Section 12 was allowed despite the pendency of the objection under Section 9.