IMAMBAQS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(2.) The petitioner has shown his grievance against the remand order dtd. 28/2/2024, whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC') has relegated the parties before the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'CO') Mahoba to get the matter decided afresh qua rights and title of the parties over the property in question.

(3.) Having considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel and perusal of the record, it is manifested that the instant writ petition is arising out of proceedings under Sec. 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act'). Undisputedly, the property in question belongs to Bhagwan Das who had two sons, namely, Govind Das and Hardayal. They have executed registered sale deeds dtd. 3/11/1993 and 6/11/1993 in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the said sale deeds, present petitioner has moved an application under Sec. 12 of UPCH Act. During pendency of the proceedings, the contesting respondents have contested the case claiming right and title over the property in question on the basis of an unregistered will deed dtd. 14/12/1987 said to have been executed by Bhagwan Das in their favour. After a chequered history of litigation, ultimately the CO, vide order dtd. 30/9/2021, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. On appeal being filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC') has allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by the CO vide its order dtd. 12/1/2022. The DDC, on revision being filed on behalf of the contesting respondent, has allowed the revision and relegated the parties before the CO to get the matter decided afresh. While remanding the matter, the DDC has given categorical finding that the marginal witness of the Will deed have not been cross-examined, therefore, their statements are not admissible in evidence. In this backdrop of the facts, the genuineness and validity of the alleged Will deed has been doubted. Intending to obtain a clear observation/finding in this regard, the DDC has remitted the matter before the CO. Nothing has been decided finally with respect to the right and title of the parties over the property in question. Both the parties still have an opportunity to contest the matter before the CO and get their right, title and interest adjudicated upon. This court is not expected to conduct a mini trial to examine the genuineness and validity of the alleged Will deed dtd. 14/12/1987, said to have been executed by Bhagwan Das in favour of his grandsons (contesting private respondents herein)