KALI CHARAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GYANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8-5-73 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation in the revision arising out of the proceedings under Sec. 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are : that Ram Lotan, Opp. Party No. 4 was bhumidhar of his chak No. 246 and he was recorded as such. He applied for permission on 12-5-70 to sell his land. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation), vide order dated 12-5-1970, granted permission to opp. party no. 4 under Sec. 5 (1) (c) (ii) to sell his land comprised in chak No. 246. In the order, however, it was mentioned that this permission will remain operative for a period of three months. Opp. party no. 4 thereafter executed as many as seven sale deeds. Four sale deeds were executed on 13-5-1970 in favour of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and 5th sale deed was executed on 11-6-70 in favour of Budhai, petitioner no. 5. Subsequently, on 29-10-1970 another sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner no. 1, Kali Charan. All the aforesaid sale deeds were in respect of the portion of his aforesaid chak no. 246 and by these six sale deeds the entire chak stood transferred to petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. Later on, opp. party no. 4 executed another sale deed on 12-5-1971 in favour of his wife Smt. "Chamela Devi, opp. party no. 6 for the entire aforesaid chak No. 246. The petitioners applied for mutation of their names, under Sec. 12 of the Act, on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds. Opp. party No. 4, Ram Lotan contested the case, inter alia, on the ground that he had not applied for any permission nor any permission was granted to him for making transfer of his chak land in question. He further asserted that he was minor on the date when he is said to have executed the aforesaid sale deeds and that the sale deed in question being violative of provisions contained in Section 5(1) (c) (ii) of the Act, were void and mutation cannot be ordered to be made in the names of the petitioners on the basis of those sale deeds.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the orders passed by the consolidation authorities.