NATHULI Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.1.2007 by which he has consolidated Case nos. 117 and 118 filed by Biri Singh, respondent no.6, under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") along with Case no.10 under Section 9A(2) of the Act filed by the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners submits that the applications filed by Biri Singh, respondent no.6, after passing order dated 25.7.2005 were not maintainable. He submits that filing of successive applications is an abuse of process of the Court, accordingly, Case nos. 117 and 118, which were registered subsequently, were not maintainable and were not liable to be consolidated along with the objection of the petitioners filed under Section 9A(2) of the Act. He further submits that the name of Smt. Champee Devi was never recorded over the land in dispute and it has not been proved that Champee Devi ever inherited the properties of Daroli as such sale deed executed by her is a void document and it cannot be given effect to in the consolidation records so long as it is not found by the Consolidation Officer that Smt. Champee Devi inherited the property in dispute. He further submits that since the property in dispute has already been in possession of the father of the petitioners from long before the start of the consolidation operation as such Daroli has also lost his title over it. In such circumstances, the execution of the sale deed as well as the proceeding on its basis is mere harassment of the petitioners and the order of the Consolidation Officer directing for consolidation of the aforesaid cases under Section 12 of the Act was illegal and liable to be set aside.