PEAREYLAL Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders passed by Consolidation Officer (C.O.), Settlement Officer of Consolidation (S.O.C.) and Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.). Revision before the D.D.C. was registered as Revision No. 59, Pearey Lal v. Vinod Kumar and others and was dismissed by the D.D.C., Meerut on 29.7.1980.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that as after executing agreement for sale, Gajendra Singh had become dishonest hence, he put forward his minor son Vinod Kumar and falsely asserted that Brahma Singh had adopted Vinod Kumar and had also executed a Will in favour of Vinod Kumar.