BRIDHI CHAND Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Shyam Krishna and Sri J.A. Azmi for the respondent no. 4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 3 inspite of service of notice.

(2.) This is a peculiar case where the court has an inkling that the file of the Consolidation Officer has either been lost or has been deliberately removed to gain advantage this way or that.

(3.) The dispute appears to have arisen out of proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The father of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 3 are stated to be real brothers and co-tenants of the disputed land. The petitioner no. 1 claims himself to be the purchaser from the respondent no. 3. After purchase of the area covered under the sale deed an application appears to have filed under Section 12 for mutation. The petitioner no. 2 also appears to have applied for mutation. The contention of the petitioners is that the mutation was carried out on the basis of a compromise and an order to that effect was passed on 5.11.1986.