NAGINA Vs. D D C MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. The complex issue of consequence to ensue on publication of notification in the official Gazette under Section 4 (2) bringing certain villages under consolidation scheme is haunting the cause of justice in the present case. Factual matrix of the case is as short as it can be.

(2.) ON 15-6-1979 a notification under Section 4 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the official Gazette notifying inter alia that the agricultural land situate in village, Bajhedi, Pargana, Jhinjhana, district Muzaffarnagar has been brought under the consolidation scheme.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed the petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the Act praying therein that since the name of Beg Raj respondent con tinue to be recorded in the basic year, the name of the petitioners be mutated in place of aforesaid Beg Raj on the basis of the aforesaid sale- deed. Beg Raj filed an af fidavit before the Assistant Consolidation Officer admitting the execution of the sale-deed and also admitting that the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid land. Aforesaid Beg Raj, respondent, however, contested the matter before the Consolida tion Officer and contended that since the sale-deed was executed in violation of sec tion 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Act, it was void in view of Section 45-A of the Act and as such, the petitioner's name cannot be mutated on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed.