KILHATI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The land in dispute was recorded in the basic year in the name of the Petitioner. One Chirkut was the tenure -holder of the land in dispute. He died in 1964 leaving Smt. Adra, Respondent No. 2, as his widow and Smt. Kilhati the Appellant as his daughter. Smt. Adra, Respondent No. 2, filed an objection alleging that being the widow of Chirkut she was entitled to be mutated over the land in dispute and that the name of the Petitioner had wrongly been recorded. The case of the Petitioner, on the other hand, was that Respondent No. 2 on the death of Chirkut remarried her brother -in -law Ram Samujh so that she lost all interest in the land in dispute and the Petitioner being the daughter of Chirkut was rightly recorded in village papers. It 'appears that Respondent No. 2 had also executed a sale deed in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Ram Samujh on 18th July, 1966, for a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. From a perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer it appears that it was registered document. Rs. 500/ - were said to have been paid at the time of registration and Rs. 500/ -, were acknowledged to have been received earlier. The Consolidation Officer after taking the evidence produced by the parties into consideration recorded a finding that Respondent No. 2 had remarried Ram Samujh and consequently she had lost her right in the land in dispute. He accordingly dismissed the objection of Respondent No. 2. This order was upheld on appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), A revision was filed thereafter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed on 16th September, 1971. The Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to have taken the view that since Ram Samujh had already a living wife he could not remarry Respondent No. 2 legally. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT was urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was nothing on the record to indicate as to whether when Respondent No. 2 remarried Ram Samujh the latter had a living wife at that point of time. According to learned Counsel, it may be that he may have married a second wife subsequently and in this view of the matter it was not right for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to take the view that the remarriage was invalid. In my opinion this submission has no substance. As is apparent from the order of the Consolidation Officer it was the Petitioner's own case that on the death of Chirkut, Respondent No. 2 remarried her sister's husband. From the case of the Petitioner herself, therefore, it is apparent that Ram Samujh was the husband of the sister of Respondent No. 2. The said sister of Respondent No. 2 is still alive. It is thus clear that when Respondent No. 2 is said to have remarried Ram Samujh the latter had at that point of time a living wife and the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot, therefore, be assailed.

(3.) THE Petitioner has raised some other pleas also in support of the writ petition. Since, however the Deputy Director of Consolidation is being directed to decide the revision afresh and it would be open to the Petitioner to raise all the points before him, I do not consider it necessary to record any finding on those pleas.