MUMTAZ ALI Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEAD Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and also Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer( Consolidation) dated 18.12.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.1.2014 arising out of Proceeding under section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Admittedly, in basic consolidation record, the name of Rupai along with the name of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute. Muradan, Subratan and Bakridan filed an objection under section 9 -A of the Act claiming themselves to be the daughter of Rupai and prayed for mutating their names over the land in dispute in respect of share of Rupai.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 20.11.1990 corrected his order and directed that in place of Muradan the name of Amantulla has already been substituted by order dated 3.12.1987 as such the order dated 19.9.1990 is corrected up to the extent that Muradan is represented through her son Amantulla. It appears that some application was again filed on which another order dated 22.01.1991 was passed and held that the order dated 20.11.1990 was modified and in place of Muradan, Amantulla son of Muradan be read. It appear that in spite of dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners have again filed an application for recall of the order dated 20.11.1990. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 13.6.2002 recalled the orders dated 20.11.1990 and 22.1.1991 on the ground that it amount to review of the earlier order for which the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction. In the meantime an application was filed under Rule 109 -A read with section 52(2) of the Act for giving effect to the order passed in the title proceeding.The Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.12.2013 directed for compliance of the order dated 11.8.1999 in the record. Thereafter two appeals were filed by the respondents which were allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 18.12.2013 and the matter was remanded back to Consolidation Officer to implement the order dated 19.9.1990, according to schedule 'A' and 'B' of the list of property mentioned in the writ petition before the High Court. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been disposed of by order dated 22.1.2014 by which again it has been held that as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.9.1990 has been upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition No.30464 of 1990 vide judgement and order dated 9.12.1993 as such the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.9.1990 is required to be given effect to. Hence this writ petition has been filed.