KALU RAM Vs. D. D. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5, Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the Administrator General.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the original petitioner, one Kalu Ram son of Sri Bhajjan, now represented by his heirs and legal representatives, petitioner nos.1/2/1, 1/2/2 and 1/2/3, challenging an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad dated 27.02.1997, whereby he has allowed Revision no.507 filed by original respondent no.2, Smt. Risalo, and set aside an order dated 10.09.1990 passed by the Consolidation Officer. By the order last mentioned the Consolidation Officer acting on a compromise dated 24.07.1987, and verified by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, had recorded shares of parties in the Consolidation Records. Also set aside by the impugned order is an order, dated 03.09.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ghaziabad, rejecting an application on behalf of Smt. Risalo to set aside the order dated 10.07.1990, by which the compromise was implemented. The Deputy Director in the same stroke also set at naught an order dated 26.08.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissing an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act carried by respondent no.2 from the order of the Consolidation Officer, refusing to set aside his order dated 10.07.1990. The result of the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order dated 27.02.1997, that is impugned here is that the parties are put back to the position as it existed prior to 10.07.1990 regarding their respective shares recorded in the land in dispute, which is detailed hereinafter.

(3.) The background of the dispute leading to this writ petition according to the petitioners is that one, Vishram was the original recorded tenure holder of the property in dispute. He was survived by two sons, Bhajjan and Chhotia. Risalo was Chotia's wife and the couple were issueless. Half share in the land in dispute upon Vishram decease went to Chhotia, and upon his death to Risalo as his widow. Bhajjan had two sons, Kalu and Jagmal. Kalu is the original writ petitioner here. He survived by his heirs, Satish, Santram, Jeetram and Baleshwar, all of whom are Kalu's grandsons, and arrayed here as petitioners. The widow of Chhotia, Risalo remarried, post inheritance, one Bahodu. In course of time, Bahodu also died and Risalo survived him. However, Risalo's name continued to be recorded in the land in dispute, that she had inherited from her first husband, the late Chhotia.