DALIP Vs. D D C AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, counsel for respondents-4 and 5.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer (respondent-3) dated 18.03.1991, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 24.02.1994 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 22.09.2003, arising out of the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) During consolidation, chak 175 (consisting plots 1016 (area 0.30 acre), 1021 (area 0.29 acre) and 1022 (area 0.37 acre) was carved out in the name of Thag. Prahlad and Awdhesh (respondents-4 and 5) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) and allegedly along with Dalip (the petitioner) filed an application on 01.10.1990 (registered as Case No. 142) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutating their names on the basis of the sale deed dated 05.02.1990, allegedly executed by Thag. Assistant Consolidation Officer (respondent-3) by the order dated 01.10.1990 directed for mutating the names of the petitioner and the respondents and deleting the name of Thag from the land in dispute. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 2296) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2), who by his order dated 24.02.1994 held that the petitioner has no right to file the appeal in the capacity of an heir of Thag. The allegation that Thag died on 15.01.1991 and his thumb impression on the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer has been fabricated is not proved. As the time limit of one year as provided in the agreement to sell dated 05.02.1990, for executing the sale deed, has expired as such the names of the petitioner and the respondents in whose favour the agreement to sell was executed was liable to be mutated. On these findings the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 139/231) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) who by his order dated 24.04.1996 held Dalip was not an aggrieved person as such he had no locus standi to file appeal or revision from the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The agreement to sell dated 05.02.1990 was also in favour of Dalip and he has not proved by adducing expert evidence that the application under Section 12 was not signed by him. The extract of Pariwar Register filed by the petitioner was not proved by examining Pradhan or Panchayat Secretary as such date of death of Thag mentioned in it was not proved. On the basis of agreement to sell, the names of the petitioner and the respondents have been rightly mutated by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. On these findings the revision was dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition (registered as Writ Petition No. 20175 of 1996) which has been allowed holding that the agreement to sell itself did not confer any title and the order of respondent-1 was set aside and the matter was remanded to respondent-1 to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law. After remand, respondent-1 by his order dated 22.09.2003 held that the agreement to sell dated 05.02.1990 was mortgage by conditional sale as such it is sale within Section 164 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the basis of order of Assistant Consolidation Officer all the parties are selling their 1/3 share in the land in dispute to third parties. The agreement to sell dated 16.10.1989 (registered on 13.02.1990) is a ante dated document and had been procured after the agreement dated 05.02.1990. The revision has been mala-fide filed without any basis. On these findings, the revision was dismissed by order dated 22.09.2003. Hence this writ petition has been filed.