MANSHA RAM Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mahendra Pratap holding brief of Shri Upendra Kumar Dubey, counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6.

(2.) Against the order dated 24.6.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O.) under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act,1953), the respondent nos.4 to 6 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) on 29.6.2007. The appeal was numbered as Appeal Nos.314/339/1821 of 2007. By his order dated 24.6.1981, the C.O. had directed that the name of Lalta i.e. the father of respondent nos. 4 to 6 be removed from the basic year records which showed him as a tenure holder of the disputed Khata. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether Lalta was alive on the date the order was passed by the C.O. or he died subsequently after the order was passed by the C.O. and if so, the date of his death. The respondent nos. 4 to 6 are the heirs of Lalta. The appeal was highly belated in as much as the same was filed almost after 26 years from the date of the order passed by the C.O.. The respondent no. 4 to 6 filed an application praying to condone the delay in filing the said appeal alleging that they had no notice of the order dated 24.6.1981. In the Memo of Appeal, the respondent nos. 4 & 5 stated their age to be 19 and 21 years respectively and alleged that they were minor when Lalta died. According to the age given in the Memorandum of Appeal, the respondent nos. 4 & 5 were born in 1986 and 1989 respectively implying that Lalta had died after 1989. By his order dated 19.9.2013, the S.O.C. condoned the delay in filing the appeal and by the same order also allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 4 to 6 and set aside the order dated 24.6.1981 passed by the C.O. and consequently directed that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 be recorded as the tenure holders of the disputed plots as they were heirs of Lalta. Against the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the S.O.C., the petitioners filed Revision No.1515 of 2013 -14 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which has been dismissed by the revisional court vide its order dated 28.7.2014 passed by the D.D.C.

(3.) The orders dated 19.9.2013 and 28.7.2014 passed by the S.O.C and D.D.C have been challenged in the present writ petition.