(1.) Heard Shri S.C. Sitapuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 05.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur (here-in-after referred as DDC, Sitapur) in Revision No. 302/283/270/266/204/80//66, Cheddu and Others Vs. Bharat and Others, under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and for a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to disturb the petitioners' possession over the disputed land i.e. Gata No. 408 (Khata No. 120).
(3.) The land in dispute was originally owned by late Aziz Khan S/o Pahelwan Khan .He sold the land to the petitioners namely Bharat Prasad, Ram Pal, Bhagwan Deen, Ramhetu and Raja Ram through a registered sale deed on 03.09.1982. In pursuance thereof the petitioners filed a mutation case which was decided in their favour and the names of the petitioners were recorded. One Israr, claiming him to be nephew of late Aziz Khan, filed a suit bearing no.423 of 1982 for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.09.1982 before the Munsif, Sitapur. The suit was dismissed by means of the order dated 29.05.1984. Israr filed a Civil Appeal No.83 of 1984 against the said order which was dismissed by means of the order dated 13.03.1985 holding that the suit was not triable by the civil court and it could have only been instituted before the Revenue Court. It was also held that the findings drawn by the learned Munsif will have no effect on the right, title and interest of the parties of the suit as the same was without jurisdiction. It appears that Israr had not filed any suit thereafter before the Revenue Court. However, one late Cheddu filed an objection under Section-9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the Act) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 1993 stating that the suit was filed under Section 229-B by him for declaration. The suit was abated on account of start of the consolidation proceedings. The objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, Sitapur by means of the order dated 26.11.1998. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed by means of the order dated 06.02.1999. Hence the opposite parties no.2 to 5 filed a revision under Section-48 of the Act before the D.D.C., Sitapur. The revision was allowed by means of the order dated 05.07.2005 hence the present writ petition has been filed.