TAJEMUL NISHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Late Shri Amjad Ali who died before 1969 was tenure - holder of the land in dispute. He left behind two sons Ibarat Ali, petitioner no.2 and Sikandar Ali who died in January 1998 and was survived by his son Ayub Ali, respondent no.3. Petitioner no.1 is widow of Amjad Ali and mother of both the brothers. After the death of Amjad Ali, objections were filed before C.O. by both the brothers. Ibarat Ali, petitioner no.2 claimed entire land. However, Sikandar Ali, father of O.P. No. 3 claimed that he and his brother Ibarat Ali inherited the land in equal share. On 09.11.1969 Consolidation Officer decided the matter holding that both the brothers had half share. Total area of the agricultural land in dispute is two bigha 14 biswa. After 18 years, i.e., on 10.12.1987 petitioner no.2 filed appeal against order of C.O. of 1969. In the appeal a compromise was filed purporting to contain the thumb impression of Sikandar Ali also. Through the said compromise it was agreed by Sikandar Ali that entire land might be given to his brother Ibarat Ali petitioner no.2.

(2.) APPEAL had been filed by Amjad Ali. The compromise was filed on 15.3.1991 copy of which is Annexure -6 to the writ petition. The appeal was decided in terms of the compromise on 27.3.1991. Thereafter, in 1996 an order was passed under Rule 109 of U.P.C.H. Rules directing entry of name of Amjad Ali pursuant to the order dated 27.3.1991. The name of Sikandar Ali was scored off on 27.3.1998. He had already died in January 1998. Respondent no.3 Ayub Ali filed restoration application on 22.7.1998. Restoration application was allowed on 28.3.2009 and order dated 27.3.1991 was set -aside. Against the said order petitioners filed revision no.1854/1217 of 2012 -13. The revision was dismissed on 27.8.2013 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give the date on which application under rule 109 was filed.

(3.) THE D.D.C. in the impugned order dated 27.8.2013 held that against the order of C.O. of the year 1969 matter was carried in appeal and thereafter in revision and revision was decided on 22.6.1971, hence, appeal filed in the year 1987 against order of C.O. of 1969 was not maintainable. Against the order dated 27.3.1991, restoration had been filed by O.P. No.3 and revision had been filed by one Ram Dular Singh in the form of revision no.2598. That revision was decided by D.D.C. Pratapgarh on 31.01.2001. Matter was remanded to the S.O.C. In the said order it was mentioned that D.D.C. had decided the matter on 22.6.1971. In the impugned order dated 27.8.2013 there is reference to the earlier order of D.D.C. dated 31.01.2001 and the order dated 22.6.1971 referred to in the order dated 31.01.2001.