MAHENDRA PARBAT Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Kant respondent no. 3 obtained a sale deed dated 26-10-72 from Ganga Parbat who was spiritual Guru recorded over the plot. On that basis he moved an application before the Consolidation Officer under section 12 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (for short Act) during the consolidation operation and obtained an order for mutation over khata no. 10 situate in village Jamin Bhanauli Pargana Natthoo Tehsil Ghosi, district Azamgarh, without impleading the petitioner Mahendra Parbat. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 5-5-82 directed the mutation in the name of respondent no. 3 on the basis of a will (Annexure-2), impleading the petitioner, who was claiming to be a Chela of Sheo Nath parbat. The petitioner challenged the order dated 5-5-82 and moved a restoration application and substitution application stating that Sheo Nath Parbat died on 20-5-82 and the petitioner as Chela could not know about the proceedings, hence the ex-parte order was obtained by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-3). The restoration application is Annexure-4. That restoration application was rejected by order dated 9-9-87 (Annexure-5). Against that order a revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by his order dated 28-6-88 dismissed the revision (Annexure-7). The present petition has been filed against these orders by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) SRI Faujdar Rai appeared for the petitioner and SRI Sanjay Mishra appeared for respondent no. 3.

(3.) SRI Sanjay Misra, appearing for respondent no. 3 on the other hand, urged that the petitioner being Chela cannot be treated to be a son who can be an heir under Section 171 of the ZA Act. It was also urged that Shiv Nath Parbat and Ganga Parbat were not the Guru of spiritual heir and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5-5-82 allowing the mutation in the name of respondent no. 3 on the basis of will was perfectly correct and just, hence there was no justification for interference.