TEJI Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings and came for hearing before a learned Single Judge who has referred certain questions for consideration by larger Bench. It is thus that this petition has come up before its.

(2.) THE dispute relates to the Khalas, one being Khata No. 199 which was originally recorded in the name of Smt. Maktoola widow of Satya Narain, and the other, namely, Khata No. 100 which was recorded in the name of Smt. Singari who was widow of a predeceased son of Satya Narain. During the pendency of consolidation proceedings Smt. Maktoola died. Thereupon her daughter Smt. Teji and the aforesaid Suit. Singari came lo be rival Applicants for substitution as her legal representatives. The case of Smt. Teji was that Smt. Singari had remarried, and as such he had no claim over either of the two Khatas and that the said Khatas should devolve on Smt. Teji herself. Smt. Singari proposed lo sell the entire Chak No. 213 which was prepared in lieu of the aforesaid Khatas 199 and 200. Under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act while consolidation proceedings are pending no land which is the subject mailer of these proceedings can be transferred without the permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short, S.O.C.). Accordingly, Smt. Singari made an application on March 4, 1978 to the S.O.C. for permission lo transfer the land. This application was first given before the Chafes were carved out and therefore a fresh application was given after the Chak were carved out, Smt. Teji objected to these applications. The S.O.C. Tanda held that as the title dispute between Smt. Teji and Smt. Singari was still pending no permission should be granted at that stage. He accordingly deferred decision on the application. This order is dated April 22, 1978 An.nexure -1. Smt. Singari filed a revision before the Dy. Director against this order. Deputy Director held that the question of permission was to be decided independently of the title dispute. Any order passed on the application for permission could not affect the title dispute. He accordingly directed that the S.O.C. should consider the matter on merits without being influenced by the pendency of the tide dispute. He further look the view that as the S.O.C. Tanda had already expressed a certain view it would be desirable that the case be heard by a different S.O.C. He accordingly directed that after remand the case shall be heard by the S.O.C, Akbarpur.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge has referred the following questions to this Bench: