DONI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION PADRAUNA DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed assail ing the correctness of the judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolida tion dated 21.9.1988 whereby the revision filed by the respondents was allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer al lowing the amendment application filed by the petitioner was set aside and the amendment application was rejected. The objections as originally filed by the parties under section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. From the perusal of the said objections is sue which emerges is with regard to the acquisition of the land in dispute being an cestral or by the father of the respondents. The petitioner claimed that the acquisition was ancestral and that the father of the petitioner and that of the respondents were jointly living as one family, whereas the case of the respondents is that the acquisition of the land in dispute was exclusively of their father in which the petitioner had no right or interest. Subsequently an amendment was filed by the petitioner, which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, in which although a little dif ferent stand has been taken but the issue which still emerges to be decided would remain the same and therefore, in the opinion of the Court it would not materi ally effect the original stand taken by the petitioner in his objections. The Deputy Director had rejected the amendment ap plication firstly on the ground that it adversely effect the rights of the respondents and secondly that it was filed at a belated stage.

(3.) PETITION allowed as above but without any order as to costs. PETITION Allowed.