MOHAMMAD ASIF KHAN, SON OF IBRAHIM KHAN, RESIDENT OF BILON CHITRASI, PARGANA GANGIRI, TAHSIL ATRAULI, DISTRICT ALIGARH Vs. DIR. OF CONSOLIDATION, U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the common point involved in both these writ petitions is whether Mohammad Yasin Khan, minor (opposite party No. 5) could file an objection before the Consolidation Officer under the guardianship of his mother Sm. Kudesia Jahan Begum.

(2.) The facts leading to these writ petitions, briefly stated are that the name of Mohammad Asif Khan (petitioner) was entered in the revenue papers as sirdar in respect of five plots recorded in Khata No. 346. The village in which the property was situate came under the consolidation proceedings and an objection was filed by Sm. Kudesia Jahan Begum on behalf of her minor son Mohammad Yasin Khan (opposite party No. 5) under Sec. 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act for the correction of papers. It was alleged that the name of the petitioner was wrongly entered against that Khata. The objection was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that Smt. Kudesia Jahan Begum, the mother of Mohammad Yasin Khan, minor, could not act as her guardian even for the purpose of filing objections for the simple reason that under the Mahomedan law she could not be the guardian of the property of minor in preference to Mohammad Ilyas Khan (opposite party No. 6), who was then alive and was the grandfather of the minor. None of the consolidation courts gave any consideration to that preliminary point. However, the objection made on behalf of the minor was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated June 28, 1962. An appeal was preferred on behalf of Mohammad Yasin Khan minor under the guardianship of his mother and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, by his order dated Sept. 15, 1963, allowed the appeal in respect of two plots, to wit, plots Nos. 1362 and 1365, but dismissed the appeal with regard to the other plots. The result was that both the parties went up in appeal against the judgment of the Settlement Officer and the two separate appeals filed by them were disposed of by a common judgment dated Dec. 19, 1963. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed in second appeal filed two revision applications before the Director of Consolidation, U.P., but was unsuccessful. The prayer, therefore, in these writ petitions is that a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari may issue quashing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Deputy Director of Consolidation and Director of Consolidation, U.P.

(3.) As mentioned earlier, the main point on which the orders are sought to be quashed in both the connected writ petitions is that Sm. Kudesia Jahan Begum could not file any objection on behalf of her minor son and for that reason that consolidation courts had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide that objection.