TARACHAND Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 30th July, 2003, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits in accordance with law. The said order was affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision by an order dated 20.10.2003. These two orders are impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the appeal preferred by the contesting respondents was not maintainable inasmuch as it was filed after notification under Section 52 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act') dated 8.2.1986 and the appeal cannot be heard and decided on merits as it was not pending on the date of publication of notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel further urged that the order, considering the case of contesting respondents on merit and remanding the matter to be considered on merits by Consolidation Officer, was without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE land in dispute was recorded in the name of Vikramaditya in the basic year. Petitioners got his name expunged on the basis of some compromise. The heirs of Vikramaditya filed appeal against order for expunging name of Vikramaditya on the ground, inter alia, that no compromise was entered into and the name of Vikramaditya, father of contesting respondents, was wrongly expunged from the revenue records and petitioner's name was wrongly recorded on the basis of forged compromise. As petitioners have no right, title or interest under law, order and compromise was liable to be quashed,