SAHODARA Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K.S. Bais learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Ramesh Chandra and Virendra Kumar) claimed right on the basis of registered sale deed 10/4/1985 executed by respondent No. 4- Kamlesh in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 Kamlesh wife of Ashok Kumar filed a Civil Suit No. 86 of 1988 for cancellation of registered sale-deed dtd. 10/4/1985. During pendency of the aforementioned Suit, village in question was brought under consolidation operation by way of notification issued under Sec. 4 of U.P. consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act). Against the basic year entry of plot in question, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act for recording of their names over the plot in question on the basis of registered sale deed 10/4/1985. Consolidation officer vide order dtd. 13/11/1997 decided the dispute under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act for recording the name of respondent No. 4-Kamlesh after expunging the name of deceased- Raghomal as well as declared 1/4 share of respondent No. 4-Kamlesh wife of Ashok Kumar in khata No. 133 and for recording the names of petitioners Smt. Sahodara, Smt. Rajbala, Smt. Puspa, Smt. Sushila after expunging the name of deceased-Raghomal as well as declared 3/4 share of Smt. Sahodara and three others in respect to khata No. 133. Consolidation Officer in another case vide order dtd. 21/6/1999 determined the share of respondent No. 4-Kamlesh as 1/4. Against the order dtd. 13/11/1997 and 21/6/1999 passed by Consolidation Officer, contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Ramesh Chandra and Virendra Kumar) filed two appeals (appeal Nos. 76 and 91) under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act along with the prayer of condonation of delay. The aforementioned appeals were heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation and vide or- der dtd. 15/10/2007 aforementioned appeals were dismissed. Against the appellate order dtd. 15/10/2007 passed in the aforementioned two appeals, revisions under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act were filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Ramesh Chandra and Virendra Kumar) which were registered as Revision Nos. 27 and 28. The aforementioned revisions were clubbed and heard together by Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate (F and R). The aforementioned revisions were allowed vide order dtd. 2/4/2013 setting the order dtd. 21/6/1999, 13/1/1997 and 15/10/2007 as well as remitted the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act afresh on merit. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 2/7/2013 and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dtd. 2/4/2013.