BHAGWAN YADAV Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel.

(2.) By order-dated 24.6.2003, Deputy Director Consolidation rescinded the proceeding under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and directed initiation of consolidation proceedings de novo after verification of Khatauni. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that thereafter, under the amended provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Consolidator passed an exparte order dated 1.7.2005 leaning in favour of Manoj son of Brij Narain although he drew attention to the fact that the petitioner is a transferee from Brij Narain through sale deeds dated 9.3.1983 and 19.3.1983 and further that the orders were passed by Asstt. Consolidation officer on 14.7.1998 in his favour. The learned Counsel further argued that since the order in question is an exparte order, the same could not be challenged and taking advantage of helplessness of the petitioner, the Opp. party is now making unstinting efforts to alienate the property to some other person, It is further argued that order passed under Sub-clause 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act followed by submission that no 'publication of record under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act has been made as yet after the orders passed by Deputy Director Consolidation.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel.