ANAR KALI Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri R.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

(2.) Pleadings have been exchanged and the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) The facts are that the petitioner moved an application under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for recording her name over the plot in dispute claiming herself to be the heir and legal representative being wife of predeceased son of deceased Khadai, the recorded tenure holder. The said proceedings ended in a compromise between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the other two sons of deceased Khadai. It was agreed under the terms of compromise that name of all the three persons be recorded over the plots in dispute in place of deceased Khadai as his heirs and legal representatives. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 7.11.2002 on the basis of the said compromise and accordingly directed the name of all the three persons namely the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be recorded over the plots in dispute. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 filed a time barred appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. It was held that the deceased Khadai had only two sons, i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and only their names be recorded in place of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2004.