NARAIN PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Consolidation Authorities whereby the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue record was rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Raghava Prasad executed registered sale-deed dated 11th March, 1974 in favour of his nephew Narain Prasad, the petitioner, in respect of his entire share in the chak belonging to him for a sale consideration of Rs. 17,000 The petitioner filed application for mutation of his name under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short the Act) on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed in the life time of Ragho Prasad. On a notice being issued, Ragho Prasad, the vendor, appeared before the Consolidation Officer on 10th November, 1974. He admitted the execution of sale-deed. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, after recording the statement of Ragho Prasad, directed the petitioner to file copy of the Sanad Bhumidhari. In the meantime. Raghva Prasad died on 30.12.1974. After his death, his two daughters. Smt. Deoraji and Smt. Hira Devi, respondents 4 and 5, filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, challenging the execution of sale- deed by Ragho Prasad. The matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer.

(3.) The Consolidation Officer held that the execution of the sale-deed by Raghava Prasad was proved but the petitioner failed to prove that any sale consideration was paid by him to Sri Raghava Prasad. It was further found that the petitioner had already more than twelve and half acres of land before the execution of the sale-deed and the sale was hit by Section 154 of the U.P. Zarnindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and further the sale was bad for want of permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The application was rejected. The appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner filed revision against the said order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the sale- deed was neither invalid for want of permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation nor it was hit by the provisions of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The revision was, however, dismissed on the finding that the petitioner failed to prove that he paid sale consideration to Raghava Prasad, the vendor.