KIRODHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mandeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Susaumya Parihar on behalf of opposite party No.s 2 to 5.

(2.) The dispute in the present case pertains to the property which was initially belonged to Dwarka, who had four brothers, namely, Mangal, Raghuveer, Mahavir and Salik and Dwarka had no children. In the aforesaid circumstances it is submitted that he had executed a will on 10/8/1978 in favour of some of the children of his brother, namely Ratanlal son of Mangal, Molhe son of Raghuvar and Bhawanideen and Mahdev sons of Salik. It is on the basis of the will dtd. 10/8/1978 that an application for mutation was given before the Consolidation Officer, where even Babulal and Nandlal, who are predecessor-in-interest were the parties. No appearance was put in on behalf of the petitioner and consequently the matter proceeded ex-parte and was allowed by means of order dtd. 21/2/1995 and on the basis of the will dtd. 10/8/1978 that the property of Ishwarden was duly mutated in favour of the legatees.

(3.) The petitioner, who is the son of Ishwardeen, had preferred an appeal on 16/4/2018 against the order dtd. 21/2/1995 after lapse of nearly 23 years. In the appeal the explanation given for the delay was that the petitioner was only two -three years old on the date of death of his father Ishwardeen. He was one month's old on the date of his death of his grand father and six months' old when his grand father had died and it is grandfather who are the predecessors in interest of the said case before the Consolidation Officer. When the petitioner became major he found out the copy of order dtd. 21/2/1995 and subsequently collected material and had filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who found that the delay was duly explained by the petitioner. He was also of the view that on the basis of succession the petitioner was entitled to a share in the property of Ishwardeen and also found that the will had not been properly proved before the Consolidation Officer and no evidence was adduced by any of the parties and consequently allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for adjudication afresh by means of his order dtd. 29/11/2023.