MAHARAJA WIFE OF SALIK RAM AND OTHERS Vs. CHHEDU, SON OF GANGA DIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARIYARPUR, PARGANA PRATAPGANJ, TAHSIL NAWABGANJ, DISTRICT BARABANKI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Srimati Maharaja and three others have filed this petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of opposite parties Nos. 5 to 7, the copies of the orders being annexures 1 to 8.

(2.) The petitioners alleged that they are grove holders of grove plot No. 515 in the village Peri, Pargana Dariyabad, Tahsil Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are recorded co-bhumidhars over the grove in question. The petitioners and opposite parties 1 to 4 were litigating about the grove in the civil courts. In the meantime consolidation of holdings proceedings started in the village but the petitioners had no information about it the July 26, 1958. On that date the civil suit was stayed. Before that date the statement under Sec. 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published showing opposite parties 1 to 4 as the sole grove-holders. The petitioners filed an objection under Sec. 12. Opposite party No. 5, the Consolidation Officer rejected the application on the ground of delay. The petitioners preferred an appeal under rule 34(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules before the Additional Settlement Officer (C). This appeal was stayed under the provisions of Sec. 22 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. A revision taken to the Deputy Director was rejected. Now the petitioners have come up with this writ petition to this court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

(3.) Only a short question is involved. The objection was not under Sec. 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This was an objection in respect of a grove and as Sec. 22(2) deals with an objection under Sec. 20 which is to be filed after the publication of the statement under Sec. 19 of the provision of the law relied upon by the Settlement Officer Consolidation has no relevancy to an objection under Sec. 12. In the circumstances this being an objection under Sec. 12 the hearing of the appeal could not have been stayed in terms of Sec. 22(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.