RAMJAS Vs. COLLECTOR / D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Satya Prakash Singh, for the petitioners and Sri K.C. Yadav, for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated

(3.) SOMAI son of Goli and Ramdev son of Shivnand (now represented by respondent - 4) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed another objection for mutating their names over the land in dispute. They have stated that Ram Sagar executed a sale deed dated 01.03.1978 of the disputed land in their favour and handed over possession over it. On 12.04.1978, Ram Sagar was left with no title in the land in dispute as such alleged sale deed dated 12.04.1978 is void. Both the application were consolidated and tried together. The petitioner apart from filing the unregistered deed of agreement to sell dated 19.01.1978, registered sale deed dated 12.04.1978 and Finger Prints Expert Report of Sri R.K. Sahay, which was proved by Rakesh Ranjan Sahgal examined Ram Sagar, Jokhu Prasad, Jokhan Singh, Bhagendu, Matau and Rakesh Ranjan Sahgal as the witnesses. The respondents apart from documentary evidence of registered sale deed dated 01.03.1978, registered sale deed dated 27.09.1965 and Finger Prints Expert Report of Sri C.H. Siddiqui, examined Buddhu, Smt. Nirmala Devi, Ramdeo and C.H. Siddiqui as witnesses. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Consolidation Officer by his judgment dated 03.10.2009 held that Finger Prints Expert Report of Sri R.K. Sahay shows that thumb impressions on the sale deed dated 01.03.1978 and 12.04.1978 were of different persons. Finger Prints Expert Report of Sri C.H. Siddiqui, shows that thumb impressions on the sale deed dated 01.03.1978 and 12.04.1978 were of the same person. As such other evidence and circumstances are liable to be examined. Ram Sagar in his statement denied execution of the sale deed dated 27.09.1965 in favour of the respondent although it was a registered document and since 1965 no step has been taken by Ram Sagar for its cancellation as such his statement denying execution of the sale deed dated 01.03.1978 in favour of the respondent is liable to be disbelieved. Due execution of the sale deed dated 01.03.1978 has been proved by the marginal witness Buddhu and also admitted by Nirmala wife of Ram Sagar. Ram Sagar also obtained permission for sale under Section 5 (1) (C) (ii) of the Act from Settlement Officer Consolidation. Thus execution of the sale deed dated 01.03.1978 by Ram Sagar has been proved. On the other hand the agreement to sell dated 19.01.1978 was an unregistered document as such was inadmissible in evidence. Ram Sagar did not obtain permission for sale under Section 5 (1) (C) (ii) of the Act from Settlement Officer Consolidation before execution of the sale deed dated 12.04.1978. As such it was held that as Ram Sagar had already sold the land in dispute in favour of the respondent on 01.03.1978 as such he had no right to execute sale deed dated 12.04.1978. On these findings name of he respondent was directed to be mutated over the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 01.03.1978.