KAUSHALENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In the basic year the respondents Surendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Brijesh Singh were recorded over the disputed land. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioners. They claim that the parties are descendants from a common ancestor and that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners in partition and the entry in the name of the respondents is liable to be expugned. The objections are still pending before the Consolidation Officer. It appears that during the pendency of these objections the respondent Narendra Singh transferred his share to the respondent No. 8 Durgesh Kumar. Durgesh Kumar moved an application for mutation under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The case was contested by the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 9.3.2005 directed mutation of the name of the respondent No. 8 Durgesh Kumar. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consoldiation, which was allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision alongwith the objections of the petitioners under Section 9A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.5.2005 was challenged by respondent No. 8 before the Deputy Director Consolidation. The Deputy Director Consolidation has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and had upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer directing mutation of the name of the respondent No. 8. This order of the Deputy Director Consolidation has been challenged by the petitioners.

(2.) I have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed to finally at this stage.