MOHAMMAD AMIR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 12.6.2003 and 4.4.2002, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad camp at Bijnor and Consolidation Officer, Bijnor.

(2.) A brief resume of necessary facts is that Bhoore deceased had taken in challenge in appeal the order passed by Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. During the pendency of appeal, aforesaid Bhoore breathed his last on 5.12.1997. Consequent upon the death of Bhoore, two sets of substitution applications came to be filed-one by petitioners sons of Sibte Hassan on 9.2.1998 in place of the deceased claiming on the strength of Will allegedly executed by the deceased in their favour and the second set of substitution application came to be filed by Smt. Niyazan widow of the deceased on 15.1.1998. It would transpire that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who was seized of the appeal, relegated the matter to the Consolidation Officer for recording evidence only for determination of the moot question of substitution. It would further transpire that consequent upon the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer registered the mater as case No. 479/CO-II and directed the parties to file evidence in support of their case. The petitioners preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation assailing the said order on the premises that the Consolidation Officer had exceeded the brief in registering the case and in directing the parties to file objection and cross-objection instead of confining himself to the direction contained in the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and further the Settlement Officer of Consolidation could himself adjudicate on the question and instead, he relegated the matter to the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision observing that the Consolidation Officer was well within his competence to invite objection and cross-objection inasmuch as that it was not possible to adjudicate on the claim which was based on the Will without inviting objection and cross-objection and held that the definition of the word 'evidence' not only consists of evidence but includes the documentary evidence to be produced for determination of the disputed question,

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel representing the opposite parties.