AYASHA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Impugned herein is the order dated 4-7- 2005 passed by Collector/district Deputy Director Consolidation, Fatehpur passed in exercise of power under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereby the authority concerned set aside the order dated 28-5-1998 passed in favour of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground that transfer in favour of the petitioner was sans permission of the Collector as envisaged in Section 156 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(2.) IT would transpire from the record that the petitioner is a transferee who has purchased the land in question by means of sale- deed dated 28-2-1997 from Ramdhani, a member of scheduled caste and on the basis of the same the Consolidation officer passed order dated 28-5-1998 mutating the name of transferee. The attention of the Collector/district Deputy Director Consolidation was drawn to this aspect who by means of order dated 7-2-2003 set aside the order in exercise of power under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. C. H. Act as stated supra. In writ petition No. 18437 of 2003, this Court vide judgment dated 1-11-2004 quashed the said order dated 7-2-2003 and remitted the matter to the Collector for decision afresh by reckoning with the rival claims of the parties within one month. While quashing the order of the Collector, this Court quintessentially indicated that petitioner cannot derive any right on the land in dispute.

(3.) THE second argument advanced across the bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order 28-5-1998 has attained finality and Section 48 (3) of the U. P. C. H. Act cannot be invoked in aid. THE argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not commend to me for acceptance for twin reasons; firstly that the Deputy Director Consolidation is fully competent to call for the record of any proceeding after giving opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and secondly that the matter was slugged out earlier before this Court and this Court directed Collector/deputy Director Consolidation to decide the matter in accordance with law. In the above perspective, no ground for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction of this Court.