LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-157

RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

Decided On October 29, 2018
RAJENDRA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Administration), Sultanpur whereby he has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners which was preferred challenging an order dated 19.05.2016 whereby the appeal preferred by the private respondents against the orders dated 16.08.2011 and 21.12.2015 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the court of Consolidation Officer.

(2.) The facts of the case, as can be culled out from the material available on record, are that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, Ram Pher and predecessor in interest of the private respondents, Sant Prasad were co-sharers of the property in question. The petitioners are sons of Ram Pher where the respondents are claiming the land in question on the basis of succession running down from the other co-sharer Sant Prasad. It appears that the objections were filed before the court of Consolidation Officer by Ram Urehi, W/o Sant Prasad. During the pendency of the proceedings Ram Urehi died and in her place, her daughter Savatri Devi, who is the mother of Krishan Gopal, was substituted on 02.01.2002. On the death of Savitri Devi, Krishna Gopal was substituted on 25.08.2010.

(3.) Against the order dated 25.08.2010 the petitioners moved an application stating therein that Savitri Devi died in the year 2007 and the application moved by Krishan Gopal seeking his impleadment was allowed and that before the application seeking substitution could be allowed, the proceedings pending before the Consolidation Officer had already abated. On the said application, it appears that an ex-parte order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 16.08.2011 whereby the order dated 25.08.2010 was set aside and the proceedings pending before the Consolidation Officer were abated on account of non-substitution of legal heirs of late Savitri Devi.