NAVEEN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 and Mr. Ashish Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is heard finally without inviting counter affidavit.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Khasra No. 1178, 1182 etc. situated in Villaget- Kulsath, Pargana and Tahsil- Deoband, District- Saharanpur were recorded in the name of one Dushyant who executed a Will-deed dtd. 15/2/2003 in favour of the petitioners' father-Rajbal. After death of Dushyant, petitioners' father initiated proceeding under Sec. 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). Respondent No. 5/ Kamla wife of Dushyant also claimed her right on the basis of succession. Consolidation Officer in the aforementioned proceeding under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act passed an order dtd. 22/12/2006 for recording the name of Kamla wife of Dushyant and rejected the claim of petitioners' father-Rajbal. Against the order dtd. 22/12/2006, a restoration application was filed on behalf of petitioners' father which was allowed vide order dtd. 12/1/2007 and proceeding under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act was restored. Consolidation Officer ultimately vide order dtd. 13/7/2011 maintained the order dtd. 22/12/2006 for recording the name of Kamla over the plot in question. Against the order dtd. 13/7/2011 again recall application was filed on 20/7/2011, which remained pending. During pendency of the recall application dtd. 20/7/2011 village was notified under Sec. 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act vide notification dtd. 28/3/2013 cancelling the notification under Sec. 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. In view of the notification dtd. 28/3/2013 issued under Sec. 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, Consolidation Officer stayed the pending proceeding vide order dtd. 29/5/2013. Against the orders dtd. 13/7/2011 and 29/5/2013, petitioners filed an appeal under Sec. 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was registered as Appeal No. 341. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dtd. 26/8/2019 set aside the order dtd. 13/7/2011 and 29/5/2013 as well as stayed the of further proceedings. The order dtd. 26/8/2019 was corrected vide sub- sequent order dtd. 2/9/2019 replacing the word stayed by the word abated. Against the order dtd. 26/8/2019, respondent No. 5/ Kamla filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision Nos. 285/2020. Respondent No. 7/ Garima (vendee of respondent No. 5/ Kamla) also filed a revision against the orders dtd. 26/8/2019 and 2/9/2019, which was registered as Revision No. 1516 of 2022. In the aforementioned Revision No. 285, old No. 263, application was filed on behalf of revisionist-Kamla to dismiss the revision as not pressed, accordingly, Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 4/2/2021 dismissed the revision filed by Respondent No. 5 / Kamla as not pressed. Against the order dtd. 4/2/2021, respondent No. 7/ Garima Garg filed a restoration application on 29/11/2022, which was allowed on 17/2/2023 setting aside the order dtd. 4/2/2021. Revision filed by respondent No. 5/ Kamla and revision filed by respondent No. 7/ Garima Garg were clubbed. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 17/6/2023 held that revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is maintainable. The order dtd. 17/6/2023 was challenged by the petitioners before this Court by way of Writ-B No. 1198 of 2023 (Navin and two others v. State of U.P. and seven others). This Court vide order dtd. 21/4/2023 dismissed the writ petition and permitting the petitioners to raise the objections before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. During pendency of the aforementioned proceedings a fresh notification dtd. 29/8/2023 under Sec. 4 of U.P.C.H. Act has been issued in the village in question, accordingly, petitioners filed an application dtd. 24/4/2024 stating that due to issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 of U.P.C.H. Act on 29/8/2023 pending proceeding of Revision No. 473/ 285 should be abated. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 2/5/2024 rejected the petitioners' application stating that the pending proceeding cannot be abated due to issuance of notification under Sec. 4 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Additional Commissioner / Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur vide order dtd. 8/10/2024 allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 5/ Kamla as well as respondent No. 7/ Garima Garg and rejected the claim of the petitioners/ Navin and others set up on the basis of unregistered Will deed. The orders dtd. 26/8/2019 and 2/9/2019 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation were set aside and the order dtd. 13/7/2011, 29/5/2013 and 22/12/2006 by which the name of the Kamla was ordered to be recorded as heir of deceased Dushyant was maintained. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief: