RAJENDRA DEVI Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER CONSOLIDATION-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. R.S. Pande for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.A. Khan for the contesting respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging two orders passed in different proceeding. First order is of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 8.8.2014, rejecting stay application of the petitioner filed in the appeal and other order is of Additional Director of Consolidation dated 5.8.2014, dismissing transfer application filed by the petitioner for transferring the appeal from the Court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki to any other competent jurisdiction of Court, arising out of title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) DISPUTE between the parties is in respect of plot 1383 (area 1.518 hectare), of village Bahrauli, pargana Kursi, tehsil Fatehpur, district Barabanki. Admittedly, the land in dispute was the holding of Mukti Nath. According to the petitioner after the death of Mukti Nath, it was inherited by his son Om Prakash and his widow Smt. Karma Devi and the petitioner purchased the land in dispute from them through registered sale -deed dated 12.5.2004. According to the respondents, Mukti Nam executed a sale -deed dated 11.4.1988 in favour of Smt. Khalida Sultan (respondent -5). Thereafter Smt. Khalida Sultan executed another sale -deed dated 2.8.2003 in favour of Jamaitul Marif Al -Islamiya (respondent -4). In basic consolidation records names of Om Prakash and Smt. Karma Devi were recorded over the land in dispute which was recorded in khata No. 68. During partal, it was informed that name of Smt. Rajendra Devi (the petitioner) was directed to be mutated by the order dated 5.9.2006 over the land in dispute on the basis of sale -deed dated 12.5.2004. The petitioner filed an objection under section 9 -A(2) of the Act for recording her name over the land in dispute. Jamaitul Marif Al -Islamiya (respondent -4) filed another objection under section 9 -A(2) of the Act for recording its name over the land in dispute. Both the objections were consolidated by the Consolidation Officer and tried together. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 19.6.2013/27.6.2013 held that the sale -deed executed in favor of respondent -5 and the sale -deed executed by respondent -5 in favour of respondent -4 were prior in time while the sale -deed executed in favor of the petitioner was later in time as such the right of respondent -4 and 5 will prevail over the land in dispute. It has been further found that the petitioner has not appeared before the Consolidation Officer to prove her case. On these findings the Consolidation Officer by order dated 19.6.2013/27.6.2013 allowed the objection of respondent -4 and dismissed the objection of the petitioner.

(3.) THEREAFTER the stay application was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation who by order dated 8.8.2014 found that the petitioner has no prima facie case accordingly, she was not entitled to any interim order. On this ground the stay application has also been rejected by Settlement Officer Consolidation. Hence this writ petition has been filed.