INDRAJEET SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The facts as reflect from the record that on 27.1984 Indrajeet and Ratibhan i.e petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2, executed sale-deed in favour of Raghuraj (father of respondent nos. 3 to 5). On the basis of said sale deed, an application was filed by the contesting respondents under Sec. 12 of the U.P. C.H.Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for mutation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, on the basis of compromise between the parties vide order dated 28.1.1985 allowed objection mutating the name of Raghuraj Singh father of the contesting respondents. Against that order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that no such compromise had ever been arrived at and the signatures on the compromise on behalf of the petitioners were forged.

(3.) Apart from the above ground, further ground taken was that the sale deed has been executed without obtaining any permission as required under Sec. 5-C (ii) of the Act. The permission dated 18.1.1984 is a forged permission as the said permission has not mentioned in the sale deed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide judgment dated 12.2017 allowed the appeal and rejected the application for mutation filed by the father of the respondent no. 3 to 5 with the finding that the sale deed was doubtful and no permission was obtained, the sale deed has not been executed within time as granted under Sec. 5-C (ii) of the Act. Against that order, a revision was filed by the contesting respondents which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 25.6.2018 remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. This order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is impugned in the present writ petition.