BRIJESH KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri R.B. Tripathi for the respondent nos. 4 to 13.

(2.) The revisional authority has affirmed the orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities. The petitioners in respect of the disputed property had set up a case that they are transferee of the disputed plots from Mata Prasad and Lal Bahadur vide sale deed dated 23 May 1970 and 25 Aug. 1970. Mata Prasad and Lal Bahadur are the nephew (Bhanje) of Ajmer and Kuber who were unmarried and died issue less, therefore, are entitled to succeed in terms of Sec. 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, petitioners being transferee were recorded in the revenue record pursuant to the sale deed executed by Mata Prasad.

(3.) It was further contended that Dulari is neither wife of Kuber and nor Majiya is daughter of Ajmer, therefore, the dispute primarily was between Mata Prasad, Dulari and Majiya as to who is entitled to succeed the disputed property which was recorded in the name of Kuber and Ajmer as co-owners.