NAZIM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 27.1.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; one Atma Ram was the original tenure holder of land in dispute. He executed an agreement to sell of agricultural land, in favour of Bharat Singh, the predecessor in interest of contesting respondents on 31.10.1968. A suit was filed by Bharat Singh for specific performance of the agreement in the year 1967 which suit was decreed by the Civil Court vide judgment and order dated 20.4.1971, The decree was put into execution and the learned Civil Judge executed a sale deed in favour of Bharat Singh on 6.6.1975. In pursuance of sale deed dated 6.6.1975 possession was taken by Bharat Singh by the Dakhalnama dated 19.8.1975. The notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Holdings Act 1953 was issued on 1.11.1973. Atma Ram the original tenure holder has executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Kaiawati on 21.6.1969 on the basis of which sale deed name of Kalawati was recorded in the basic year. At the time of Partal one Phullu s/o Atma Ram claimed possession and rights on the basis of adverse possession. Second objection was filed by Bharat Singh, father of respondent No. 4 to 7 claiming rights on the basis of sale deed dated 6 6.1975. Third objection was filed by one Smt. Skakuntala Devi claiming 1/3rd share on the basis of sale deed by Smt. Kalawati. Fourth objection was filed by Smt. Kanti Devi claiming unauthorised possession on plot in dispute and claimed right on that basis, Consolidation Officer rejected all the fourth objections vide his order dated 31.1.1976 and maintained the entry of Smt. Kalawati. Against the order of Consolidation Officer only Bharat Singh filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 5.6.1978. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation took the view that sale deed executed in favour of Bharat Singh dated 6.6.1975 has been executed "without obtaining prior permission of Settlement Officer of Consolidation as required by Section 5(1)(c) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act., 1953, hence no right can be given to Bharat Singh. The sale deed of Bharat Singh was not held to be valid due to want of permission under Section 5(1)(c) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, The Settlement Officer of Consolidation observed that the sale deed is void. Bharat Singh filed a revision challenging the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation which revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his judgment dated 27.1.2006. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that no permission was required under Section 5(1)C(ii) since the sale deed was executed by Civil Judge in execution of the decree of Civil Court. Deputy Director of Consolidation held that Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation committed error in holding the sale deed void- Smt. Kalawati the recorded tenure holder had executed a sale deed in favour of Manmohan Singh Bahal and Virendra Singh Bahal who in turn had executed the sale deed in favour of Nazim. This writ, petition has been f led by Nazim the vendee challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.1.2006.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that permission under Section 5(1)C(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was necessary before execution of the sale deed and Bharat Singh did not acquire any right on the basis of sale deed which was executed in the contravention of Section 5(1)C(ii) of the Act.