RAM MANOHAR LOHIA MAHAVIDYALAYA, MAHABEER CHHAPARA AND ANOTHER Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GORAKHPUR AND 2 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to have purchased certain property from the third respondent Kamla Devi by registered sale deed dated 24.4.2006. They initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for mutation of their name in place of Kamla Devi. It is noticeable that the name of Kamla Devi came to be recorded in the revenue records on the basis of an order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer placing reliance on an unregistered will allegedly executed in her favour by her husband Ravi Pratap. The third respondent, Kamla Devi has executed yet another sale deed in respect of the part of the property she claimed to have inherited from her husband in favour of one Dhanvanti Devi. On the basis thereof, name of Dhanvanti Devi was mutated by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 16.1.2006. The second respondent who is the son of Ravi Pratap filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation challenging the orders dated 2.8.2002 and 16.1.2006. The said appeal is pending consideration before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The second respondent also applied for impleadment in proceedings under Section 12 which are pending at the instance of the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 26.5.2016 rejected the application of the second respondent seeking impleadment in the proceedings holding that the mutation proceedings are between the petitioners and Kamla Devi and no third party would get any right to seek impleadment therein. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has allowed the same by impugned order dated 5.9.2016. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the appeal filed by the second respondent challenging the mutation of name of her mother in the revenue records on the basis of alleged will being pending, the second respondent would be a necessary and proper party to the present proceedings. Consequently, the revision has been allowed, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 26.5.2016 has been set aside, and the Consolidation Officer has been directed to make the second respondent a party to the proceedings and thereafter decide the same after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the pendency of the appeal at the instance of the second respondent against the orders dated 16.1.2006 and 2.8.2002 would have no bearing on the present proceedings and the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in relying on the said proceedings in permitting impleadment of the second respondent.

(3.) Concededly, the second respondent is the son of Ravi Pratap Shukla, the tenure holder to whom the property belonged. The alleged will in favour of Kamla Devi is an unregistered will. The second respondent is seriously disputing the execution of the will and has already preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation challenging the orders by which the name of his mother came to be mutated in the Revenue records on the basis of unregistered will.