MEHRUNNISHA Vs. DISTT DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents: Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10.3.2014, 22.3.2014 and 31.5.2014 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. Vide order dated 10.3.2014, the -Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short, 'the SOC') has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and fixed 19.3.2014 for decision on merit, whereas by the subsequent order dated 22.3.2014, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted before the Consolidation Officer for hearing the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing and adducing the evidence to the parties and vide order dated 31.5.2014, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.3.2014 has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that the present petitioner had purchased 1/3rd share of land belonging to respondent No. 5 through registered sale deed dated 23.9.2009. After the execution of the sale deed, she filed an application under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short, 'the Act') before the Consolidation Officer. The said application was allowed on 20.9.2010. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, a time barred appeal was filed by respondent No. 3, along with an application, for condonation of delay, for extending the period of limitation by condoning the delay, before the SOC. The SOC, in turn, condoned the delay vide order dated 10.3.2014. The restoration application was filed on the ground that the respondent No. 5 had entered into a registered agreement to transfer four acres land belonging to him. When the sale deed was not executed within time, the respondent No. 3 filed a suit in the Civil Court for a specific performance of agreement to sell. This suit was decreed in the year 2006. It has no where been discussed that against this judgment and decree, any appeal was filed or this judgment and decree has any where been challenged. From going through the records of the writ petition, it transpires that respondent No. 5, in stead of executing the decree by executing the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3, had transferred the entire property in favour of the petitioner as well as one Ashiya Begum (the respondent No. 4).

(3.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed revision; that has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short, 'the DDC'), holding it to be not maintainable for the reasons that it has been filed against an interlocutory order.