SMT. BHRAHMO DEVI Vs. PRAKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Sahai, appearing for contesting respondents.

(2.) With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) The facts are that an objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') filed by the father of contesting respondent No. 1, was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.8.2001. Subsequently, an application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the said order on the ground that it was passed ex parte without any notice or opportunity of hearing to her. The Consolidation Officer found that Devi and Chiranji, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner were arrayed as party and on their death an application was filed to substitute the petitioner in their place but no order was passed on the said application and without impleading her and issuing any notice, order dated 28.8.2001 was passed. On the basis of aforesaid finding, the recall application filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 11.5.2006 and the order dated 28.8.2001 was recalled. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision, which was registered as Revision No. 187. Respondent No. 2 also filed a revision registered as Revision No. 185/06 on the allegation that he has purchased the disputed land from respondent No. 1 as such the order dated 28.8.2001 could not be recalled and was liable to be maintained. The Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated both the revisions and vide order dated 8.9.2006 allowed both the revisions. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revisions mainly on the ground that the names of Devi and Chirangi, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was fraudulently recorded in the revenue records and had rightly been expunged vide order dated 28.8.2001 as such said order was not liable to be recalled.