SHYAMRATHI Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik for the petitioner and Sri K.S. Shukla for the contesting respondent -6. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.5.2008 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of mutation and the order dated 31.12.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner filed against the aforesaid order.

(2.) ON the basis of an agreement to sell dated 5.1.1995 as corrected by rectification deed dated 4.6.1997, the petitioner filed an application for mutation of his name under section 12 of the Act. It is alleged that the case was decided in terms of compromise by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 29.12.1997 and name of the petitioner was directed to be mutated. It is alleged that Deoo, father of respondents - 3 to 5 although survived upto the year 2000 but he did not challenge the order dated 29.12.1997 during his life time. After his death respondents - 2 to 5 filed a highly time barred appeal on 12.7.2006 along with delay condonation application against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The appeal was heard by the Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the order dated 21.5.2008 condoned the delay and held that on the basis of agreement to sell the mutation proceeding was taken but which was not maintainable on the basis of agreement to sell. Deoo was person belonging to Scheduled Caste and there is no sale deed after taking permission of the Collector in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 29.12.1997 was found to be illegal and was set aside. The petitioner challenged the order in the revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 31.12.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the records. The appeal has been allowed for two reasons i.e. firstly mutation proceeding was not maintainable on the basis of agreement to sell and secondly in view of clear restriction imposed under section 157 -A which cannot be avoided by Deoo who was person of Scheduled Caste and no permission has been taken for selling the land in dispute nor any sale -deed was executed. Therefore in view of restriction imposed under section 157 -A of UP Act No. 1 of 1951, name could not be mutated on the basis of agreement to sell and mutation of name is merely a collusive act.