SHASHI BALA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 as he has filed his power, in Court today which is taken on record. The instant writ petition arises out of objections under Sec. 9-A(2) and Sec. 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(2.) Two objections under Sec. 9-A(2) were filed, one by the respondent No. 3 and the other by the respondent No. 4, alleging that there was a double entry in the revenue records inasmuch as one Leele son of Ram Saran had been allotted a patta along with the objectors. The patta granted in favour of Leele son of Ram Saran was entered twice in the revenue record; at one place allottee, was shown to Leele Son of Ram Saran and at the other place he was shown as Leele son of Rama. As a consequence of this double entry, the area allotted to the other allottees specially the objectors stood reduced in the revenue records.

(3.) A third objection was filed under Sec. 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the petitioner, claiming on the basis of the registered sale deed in her favour executed by Leele son of Rama.