MURARI PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Singh for contesting respondent No. 3.

(2.) LAND in dispute originally belongs to one Shambhu. On his death, an objection under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consoli dation of Holdings Act was filed by one Shiv Bhushan for recording his name on the ground that he was heir of deceased tenure holder. The said objection was de cided by the Assistant Consolidation Offi cer vide order dated 6.7.1993 and his name was directed to be mutated in the records in place of deceased Shambhu. Petitioner claims to have purchased the land from Shiv Bhushan by means of registered sale deed dated 18.11.1993 and thereafter it ap pears that his name also came to be mu tated on the basis of the order dated 25.2.1994 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The order dated 6.7.1993 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Offi cer directing to record the name of Shiv Bhushan-vendor of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 3 by filing an appeal claiming himself to be the son of the deceased tenure holder Shambhu. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 29.12.1995 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolida tion Officer to decide the same afresh after opportunity of hearing and evidence to the parties. After remand, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.11.1997 di rected the name of the respondent No. 3 to be recorded in the revenue record. Thereaf ter, the petitioner moved an application to recall the order dated 20.11.1997 on the ground that impleadment application filed by him on 3.9.1996 was pending and with out deciding the same and without any opportunity of hearing to him, the order has been passed. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.12.1997 issued notice on the said application and stayed the ef fect and operation of the order dated 20.11.1997. The matter remained pending before the Consolidation Officer. All of sudden, after about 11 years, the respon dent No. 3 filed a revision challenging the orders dated 20.11.1997 as well as 17.12.1997 passed by Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 2.1.2009 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 17.12.1997 and confirmed the order dated 20.11.1997 by which the name of the peti tioner was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) I have considered the arguments , advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.