BACCHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.N. Ojha appearing for contesting respondent.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.12.2003, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. By amendment application prayer for quashing orders dated 10.11.1995 and 30.6.1999 has also been added.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are Consolidation proceedings started in the village Midha under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Dispute relates to Khata No. 80. An objection was filed by the contesting respondent under Section 9A (2) of the Act claiming themselves to be co-tenure holder of the Khata and also stating that late Sita Ram who was co-tenure holder has executed a Will dated 15.11.1977, in favour of the objector. It was stated that Sita Ram died on 1.3.1979 hence, the name of Sita Ram be deleted and name of objectors/ contesting respondents be recorded. The petitioner's case before the Consolidation Officer was that late Sita Rani executed a Will in favour of the petitioner on 16.3.1979. Evidence started before the Consolidation Officer. The evidence of the petitioner who was respondent in the objection was closed on 6.9.1994. On an application filed by the petitioner he was permitted to cross-examine the witness on 1.6.2.1995. The case was taken on 25.8.1995 on which date the Court noted that witness of petitioner is not present, hence the evidence of the respondent petitioner is closed and case be fixed on 8.9.1995. The petitioner moved an application on 25.8.1995 praying for recall of the order dated 25.8.1995. Another application was moved by the petitioner on 25.8.1995 praying that record of Post Office Suryapuram District Balia be summoned in which late Sita Ram has put his thumb impression which may be got compared with the signature of Sita Ram in the Will. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 10.11.1995 rejected both the applications of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer observed in the order that repeated opportunity is not required to be given to Bachha since he is interested in delaying the proceeding. Both the applications were rejected. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.11.1995 petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Act before Settlement Officer. Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 30.6.1999 rejected the appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation observed that appeal has been filed only against an interlocutory order hence it does not lie. Petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. The revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.12.2003 against which order this writ petition has been filed.