SUSHILA DEVI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE on this review application was issued by this Court while admitting the review application by its order dated 1 -12 -1988. According to the office report, the Respondents have been duly served with the notices of the review application. No one has, however, appeared in response to that notice. I am accordingly proceeding to dispose of the matter finally.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the review application are not in dispute. The land in question is plot No. 290 khata No. 29 area 4.65 acres, situate in Village Somai, Pargana Orai, district Jalaun. The Petitioner purchased this land under a registered sale deed dated 26 -6 -1969 executed by one Chatur Singh, opposite party No. 3. On the basis of the sale deed the Petitioner applied for mutation. This was rejected by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 17 -7 -1971. The Petitioner appealed against that order before the Commissioner. While that appeal was pending, the village in question came within the purview of the consolidation operations started under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as a consequence of which the appeal abated. The Petitioner thereupon filed application for mutation before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Chatur Singh and Gaon Sabha filed objections, against the same but the Consolidation Officer allowed the mutation application, and rejected the objections filed by the Gaon Sabha and Chatur Singh.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed by an order dated' 19 -2 -1976. The order was based on the premise that the date of acquisition of bhumidhari rights would be the date of declaration i.e. the actual grant of sanad and not the date of deposit of twenty time annual rent in pursuance of the sale deed. Consequently, it was held that the execution of the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner and deposit of 20 times of the land revenue by the latter on 26 -6 -1969 would not result in the transfer of bhumidhari rights in favour of the Petitioner.