SAVITRI DEVI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land in dispute is situate in several villages. Gokul Pandey was its tenant. He is said to have executed a registered sale deed dated 6.8.1973 in favour of Gauri Shankar Mishra on the basis of which the name of Gauri Shanker Mishra was mutated. Gauri Shanker died on 16.6.1981. Meera Devi, the 4th respondent claims that she is his widow. Badri Prasad, the 5th respondent claims that Gauri Shankar had executed in his favour a sale deed for half share in the land of village Bhabhnauli Kala. He also relies upon a sale deed by Meera Devi in respect of the land of village Sidhauna. After the death of Gauri Shankar, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.11.1981 directed that the name of Gokul Pandey be recorded over chak No. 47 in place of Gaurl Shankar as successor. Meera Devi then applied for setting aside the order dated 4.11.1981. It appears that Gokul Pandey died on 15.2.1988. The petitioner Savitri Devi claims that a registered Will was executed in her favour by Gokul Pandey. The Consolidation Officer originally allowed the restoration application filed by Meera Devi by his order dated 25.6.1990 but that order was subsequently set aside on the application of the petitioner. The restoration application filed by Meera Devi thus, became pending. The petitioner Savitri Devi then filed an application alleging that the real Meera Devi was unheard of for the past several years and that the restoration application was forged and filed by an imposter and it was prayed that Meera Devi be summoned in Court. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 9.12.1991 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner went up in appeal and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation also turned down by his order dated 29.4.1997 the prayer to summon Meera Devi to appear in person. The petitioner than filed a revision against the order dated 29.4.1997 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

(2.) It appears that several cases were pending amongst the parties at level of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation before whom the aforesaid revision of the petitioner was pending called for the files of these cases in exercise of powers under Section 44A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as also in exercise of suo motu powers in the revision. The files of Appeal No. 259/290 in respect of village Ishopur-Smt. Savitri Devi v. Meera Devi Objection No. 893 under Section 9A (2) in respect of village Bhabhnauli Kala--Smt, Meera Devi v. Gokul Pandey ; Objection No. 902 under Section 9A (2) in respect of village Bhabhnauli Kala--Smt, Savitri v. Sarkar ; Objection No. 985 under Section 9A (2) in respect of village Bhabhnauli Kala-Smt. Meera Devi v. Sarkar ; Objection No. 986 under Section 9A (2) in respect of village Bhabhnauli Kala--Bhadri Narain v. Sarkar ; Objection No. 2463 under Section 9A (2) in respect of village Rampur--Smt. Meera Devi v. Sarkar ; Objection No. 2136 under Section 9A (2) of village Ishopur--Smt. Meera Devi v. Sarkar ; Appeal No. 123 under Rule 65/109 kha framed under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of village Bhabhnauli Kala and Rampur--Meera Devi v. Sarkar were thus, summoned.

(3.) By the impugned order dated 12.3.1999, the Deputy Director of Consolidation disposed of all the objections and the appeals and the revision. The objections of Savitri Devi, the petitioner have been rejected and the objections of Meera Devi and Badri Narain were allowed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation directed that the name of Gauri Shanker entered in the land situate in the aforesaid villages be expunged and ordered that the names of Badri Narain and others be recorded as bumidhar. Modifications were also made in the entries of the names in the records of villages Ishapur, Bhabhnauli Kala and Rampur. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.3.1999.