SHABBIR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 and 7 and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha (respondent No. 6) on admission of the writ petition and perused the record on board.

(2.) Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dtd. 13/7/2021, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the restoration application moved on behalf of the petitioner against the order dtd. 13/9/2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision Nos. 12/22/47/85/121 and Revisions No. 13/33/48/86/122.

(3.) Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that the property in question basically belongs to one Nanhe. Present petitioner is claiming his right and title over the property in question on basis of unregistered will deed dtd. 28/7/1993, however, contesting respondent No. 2 (Mangata) is claiming his right and title on the basis of succession being nephew of the recorded tenure holder Nanhe. Third claim was put forward by Smt. Shakuntla (respondent No. 4) on the basis of registered sale deed dtd. 15/5/1997 said to have been executed by one Lallu Singh who was alleged vendee of Nanhe. In mutation proceeding under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act (in brevity "L.R. Act"), present petitioner has got his name recorded vide order dtd. 21/12/1996. During consolidation operation, Smt. Shakuntala (respondent No. 4) has filed objection under Sec. 9 A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act") for recording her name on the basis of registered sale deed dtd. 15/5/1997. Objection filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed vide order dtd. 21/3/2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Having been aggrieved, petitioner has preferred appeal. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dtd. 1/10/2007, has allowed the appeal and quashed the order dtd. 21/3/2003 with a direction that name of the petitioner shall be recorded in the Revenue Record. It appears that, at subsequent stage, Mangata (respondent No. 2) has filed appeal assailing the order dtd. 21/3/2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Said appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dtd. 25/2/2015, on the ground that earlier an appeal is already decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dtd. 1/10/2007. Having been aggrieved, respondent No. 2 has preferred two revisions assailing the order dtd. 1/10/2007 and 25/2/2015 respectively. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed both the revisions, vide order dtd. 13/9/19, remitting the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Having been aggrieved, petitioner has filed restoration application dtd. 18/9/2019 against the order dtd. 13/9/2019 which was dismissed by impugned order dtd. 13/7/2021, as such, instant petition has been filed assailing both the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.