ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SITAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

(2.) Assailing the aforesaid three orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the three Consolidation Authorities have committed a patent illegality in ignoring the impact of the judgment passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner namely Ram Bharose and the reason given by the Consolidation Courts that there was a registered sale-deed in favour of Sri Sazzad Hussain, the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 8 dtd. 24/1/1981 which could not be ignored and since as per the said sale-deeds, the rights were with Sazzad Hussain (thereafter on his successors). The three Authorities have erred in relying upon the same whereas the said sale-deed as per the petitioner had been declared void in proceedings under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 by means of judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2009.

(3.) In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed as under:-