RAJIT RAM SINGH Vs. MAHADEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 30.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition as stated in the writ petition, in brief, are that the land in dispute was originally owned by one Sri Ram Singh, who died on 28.8.1990 leaving behind his three sons, namely. Surya Bux Singh, Basdeo Singh and Mahadeo Singh. It was on 17.9.1990 Mahadeo Singh, Basdeo Singh and Surya Bux Singh, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 applied for mutation of their names in place of Ram Singh as his heirs and legal representatives before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On 16.10.1990, Sant Ram Das, father of respondent No. 6 also applied for mutation of his name in place of Ram Singh on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by him in his favour. The Assistant Consolidation Officer referred above-noted cases to the Consolidation Officer for decision. Consolidation Officer passed order dated 18.12.1990 and allowed the mutation application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Thereafter it was on 22.1.1991 that Consolidation Officer also directed mutation of the name of Sant Ram Das over the property in dispute on the basis of the said Will. On 27.4.1991 Ashok Kumar Singh and others claiming themselves to be vendees from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 applied for mutation of their names on the property in dispute. The Consolidation Officer allowed their application and ordered mutation of the names of the said vendees, i.e., Ashok Kumar Singh and Bhim Singh. The Assistant Consolidation Officer also ordered mutation in favour of the petitioners as vendees from Sant Ram Das with respect to the same property. Challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer appeals were filed by the parties before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties allowed the appeals and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh after hearing both the parties without recording any findings on the question involved in the case by his order dated 9.12.1998. Challenging the validity of the said order, four revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the said revisions by his order dated 30.6.2001, set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and upheld the mutation orders passed by the Consolidation Officer by different orders in favour of the opposite parties. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order dated 30.6.2001.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is without jurisdiction as the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was an interlocutory order within the meaning of the terms used in Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short 'the Act'). Therefore, the revisions filed against the said order by the parties were illegal and not maintainable. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted illegally in entertaining the said revisions and in allowing the same. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was thus, according to him, liable to be quashed. It was also urged that the effect of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation will be that the parties will have full opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence in their favour and the case shall be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to allow this petition and to direct the Consolidation Officer to decide the case in terms of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.