BRINDA DUBEY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners seek a relief of quashing the judgment and orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities dated 24-2-1975, 31-12-1975 and 31-7-1981. The brief facts given rise to this writ petition are as follows :- The petitioners were recorded over the plots of Khata No. 72 situated in village Chakrawa Dhus, Tappa Kachuwar, Paragana Salempur Majhauli, Tahsil and District Deoria. Against the said entry the opposite party Surendra and others filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (from hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). According to the contesting respondents, plots in dispute were the Sir plots pertaining to Khewat No. 2. Sadanand and Mahanand were the real brothers and they were the Khewat holders. Brinda is the grand son of Mahanand and Muse, Jammuna and Sarvjeet are the sons of Sadanand. The opposite parties had 2/3 shares and Mahanand's branch had 1/3 shares. Brinda is said to have executed a sale deed 9-1-1961 in favour of the petitioners after depositing ten times rent. Opposite parties filed suit, being suit no- 369 of 1958 and the said suit was dismissed, Dismissal was maintained in the appeal and in second appeal the High Court has set aside the judgments of the courts below by its order dated 19-1-1971 and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Petitioners filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court dated 19-1-1971. Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the special leave before the Supreme Court, the village was notified under section 4 (2) of the. Act Consolidation Officer placing refiance on the' judgment of this Court dated 19-1-1971 passed an order -expunging the name of the petitioners as he; treated the decree of the second appeal of this Court as final. Against the said order petitioners filed appeal and thereafter revision but the appeal and revision both were dismissed.

(2.) INSPITE of the fact that registered notices were sent as well as the notices were also published in the newspaper, the contesting respondents neither appeared nor filed their counter affidavit.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders and judgments of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the dispute between the parties on merits in accordance with law.