RAMBIR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MUZZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 6. 9. 1995 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Annexure 9 to the petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the petition, counter affidavit and other affidavits. The dispute relates to the land of Khata No. 24, situate in Mauja Haradfatehpur, Pargana Thana Bhawan, Tahsil Kerana, district Muzaffarnagar. In the basic year Kedar Singh, Ghanshyam Singh and Bir Singh (1/6th share) Smt. Swaroopi widow of Chamela Singh (1/4th share) and Udham Singh (1/4th snare) were recorded as Bhumidhar. The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are transferees of Smt. Swaroopi widow of Chamela Singh vide registered sale-deed dated 30. 5. 1994 Annexure 1 to the petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the S. O. C. had held that the alleged agreement dated 26. 10. 1961 was not acted upon and this was a finding of fact which could not be validly reversed by the D. D. C. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dular v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1994 RD 290. The Supreme Court in that decision held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the S. O. C. This view has been followed by this Court in Krishna Pratap Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1996 (67) RD 216.