RANA PRATAP PAL Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Narsingh Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Uma Nath Pandey for the respondents. The writ petition, has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.12.2013 passed in revision arising out of proceedings under section 12 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) THE dispute related to the mutation of the name of the petitioner over plot No. 465 of village Mathauli, pargana Mahuli Paschim, distt. Basti. This plot was left as out of consolidation during consolidation proceeding. An area of 0.019 hectare of this plot has been recorded in the name of Ramesh Chand Pal, and Gangesh Pal in khata No. 383. Similarly, an area of 0.019 hectare of this plot was recorded in the name of Ramesh Chand Pal, Jai Shanker Pal S/o. Vishwanath Pal, Prem Shankar Pal S/o. Paras Nath Pal, Girijesh Pal, Gyanendra Pal, Umesh Pal in khata No. 161. The petitioner purchased 1/2 share on plot No. 465 from Ramesh Chand Pal through a sale -deed dated 25.8.2003 on the same day the petitioner obtained another sale -deed from Girjesh Pal in respect of his 1/6 share of plot No. 465. On the basis of two sale -deeds the petitioner applied for mutation of his name over the land in dispute. The Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.9.2003 directed for mutation of the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute on the basis of aforesaid sale -deeds in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that the persons who have transferred the land to the petitioner, have already entered into the compromise. There had been a family settlement between the parties as such the transferor although joint co -sharer has right to transfer the land falling in their share. The other co -sharer namely Chandra Prakash Pal has no right to object the transfers or has no right to challenge the mutation order which has been passed on the basis of sale -deed as well as compromise. He further submits that on the allegation with the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer has been passed without issuing of notice, Chandra Prakash Pal ought to have been filed a recall application in stead of filing the appeal. He further submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation has vaguely mentioned that order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation is erroneous without pointing out any particular error in it. He further submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not decided the revisions on merit and has illegally set aside the impugned order.