RAJ KUMARI Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shiva Kant Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THIS Review Petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.8.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.478 (Cons.) of 2007 Rajkumari and another versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition on the statement of the Counsel for the contesting respondents that consequent to compromise, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) decided the appeal on 18.1.1994 and Revision preferred against the same was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the instant Review Petition, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners contended that on 18.8.2008 when the case was dismissed, the counsel conducting the case, namely, Sri L. P. Ojha was suffering from viral fever and could not attend the Court. Therefore, the necessary and relevant facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents concealed the material facts resulting in grave injustice.

(3.) ON behalf of contesting opposite parties, it has been submitted that land of chak no.1028 and 1071 situated at village Kirkhauli, pargana Magalsi, Tehsil Sohaval, District Faizabad was recorded in the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi, W/o Harihar Singh in the basic year. On 30.11.1955, late Harihar Singh executed a Will in which he stated that the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi shall be recorded in the revenue records as Guzara-Dariya (Heen Hayati) and she shall have no right to transfer, mortgage, or sell her movable or immovable property and after her death, real brother Baksh Singh and his descendants shall be owners of the property. On the basis of the aforesaid Will, Sahab Baksh Singh filed a time-barred objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, Maqbara vide order dated 10.9.1993. Thereafter, Sahab Baksh Singh preferred an appeal where late Smt. Saraswati Devi entered into compromise and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise vide order dated 18.1.1994. Late Smt. Saraswati Devi and Raj Kumari Devi preferred revision but the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed it vide judgment and order dated 28.6.2007. Therefore, there is no error apparent in the impugned judgment and the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed.