SARVAN @ SHARWAN KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 8 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 9 and Shri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel has put in appearance on caveat on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 7.

(2.) Under challenge is the order dtd. 30/7/2024 passed by the D.D.C., whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the order passed by the S.O.C. dtd. 16/2/2024. As a consequence, the matter stood remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh including after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

(3.) A brief resume of the facts involved in the instant petition as evident from the record is that the property in question was initially leased out to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and private respondent Nos. 3 to 7, namely, Shri Bala son of Maadu. After the death of Shri Bala, he was survived by his widow Smt. Sukkhi, who also died issueless. The property thereafter reverted to the real brother of Bala, namely, Ramdeen. The petitioner and private respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are real brothers and sons of Ramdeen. Upon the commencement of the consolidation operations in the village in question, the name of Smt. Sukkhi (the real aunt of the petitioner and private respondent Nos. 3 to 7) continued to remain recorded. However, in the meantime, the present petitioner on 2/7/2000 on the basis of an alleged understanding/compromise got his name mutated in the revenue records. After the consolidation operations were concluded in the year 2003, another set of litigation commenced and the proceedings for mutation were filed before the Naib Tehsildar, Paliya, District Kheri, wherein the said proceedings for the first time, the petitioner had referred to the order dtd. 2/7/2000, whereby he had got his named mutated.