RAM PRATAP Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, (for short, DDC) the order 6.12.2004 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, (for short, SOC) and the orders dated 23.8.2004 and 24.8.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer (for short, CO).

(2.) THE dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot nos. 974/1 and 974/2 of village Barawan Bhadauli, pargana, tehsil and district Bahraich. In the basic year record these plots were recorded in the name of father of respondent no. 6, namely, Rupendra Vikram Singh @ Bade Yuvraj Kumar.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that a patta of the aforesaid land was executed by the zamindar in favour of Bal Govind, uncle of the petitioner. Bal Govind, who was in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the lease aforesaid, became sirdar of the same on the abolition of zamindari. It is further alleged that in 1955 he deposited 10 times of the land revenue and obtained a bhumidhari sanad in his name. Despite the sanad in favour of Bal Govind his name was not recorded over the land in dispute; Bal Govind executed a registered will in favour of the petitioner. On the death of Bal Govind on 21.5.1977 the petitioner succeeded to the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid will. The trees planted by the petitioner and his uncle Bal Govind exist over the land in dispute, apart from the house, as also a Shivala (a temple of Lord Shiva) and the petitioner is in possession over the same. On 18.12.1999, respondent nos. 5 and 6 executed a sale -deed in favour of respondent no. 4, the contesting respondent. The purchaser filed an objection under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, CH Act) claiming mutation on the basis of sale -deed in his favour. The Consolidation Officer on 15.3.2004 passed an order to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a recall application which was dismissed by order dated 23.8.2004. On 24.8.2004 the objection filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed and he was ordered to be mutated over the land in dispute. The order of the Consolidation Officer has been affirmed in appeal by the SOC vide order dated 6.12.2004. The consequential revision was dismissed by the DDC on 3.6.2005. Hence this writ petition challenging three orders of the consolidation courts, as also the order dated 23.8.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer rejecting the recall application filed for recalling the order dated 15.3.2004 whereby the matter was ordered to proceed ex parte against the petitioner.