KESHAV RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Guru Prasad and Ram Avtar had not jointly filed any objection nor had the Appeal been filed by Ram Avtar. It is, therefore, urged that Ram Avtar has not contested the matter, and as against him namely the respondent No.4 herein, no claim survived for consideration by the authorities.

(2.) SRI Udayan Nandan secondly contends that apart from this, the objection, which was filed by Ram Avtar and Guru Prasad, came to be rejected on 24.10.2005 and a recall application was also rejected on 16.5.2006. In between Guru Prasad transferred his entire land in favour of respondent No.3, who is the daughter of Guru Prasad, through a registered sale-deed on 15.5.2006. The Appeal was filed 5 days thereafter on 20.5.2006. The ground urged by SRI Nandan is that once Guru Prasad has transferred the entire holding in favour of respondent No.3, his daughter, the appeal could not have been filed by Guru Prasad. It was therefore erroneously entertained and allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 27.9.2006. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 6.8.2007 and, therefore, this writ petition.

(3.) IN reply to the said averment, a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed where it has been again reiterated that neither the objection was filed by Ram Avtar nor the Appeal on which reliance has been placed. Sri Tiwari submits that such a ground was not urged before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and even otherwise, the memo of revision nowhere indicates that such a ground was raised and was not decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He, therefore, contends that this plea is not available to the petitioner.