NAWAB DULLA KHAN Vs. AJIZ KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Udit Chandra learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Rajesh Yadav for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, in the opinion of the Court, it is not necessary to issue notice to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 at this stage.

(2.) The Petitioner was recorded in the basic year. Against the share allocated an objection was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The same was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 19th September, 2006 by which the said Respondents 1 and 2 were allocated 1/4th share each whereas the Petitioner's share stood reduced to 1/6th. The Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 19th July 2010 remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh on the ground that the order of the Consolidation Officer was ex parte.

(3.) Consequently the matter was to proceed before the Consolidation Officer but the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a revision against the order dated 19th July, 2010 which has been allowed by the impugned order and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer has been set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also proceeded on merits to uphold the share as claimed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after having accepted on record the evidence of a preliminary decree that was stated to have been prepared in proceedings relating to a partition suit under Section 176 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.