PHOOLA DEVI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are that Smt.Bhagwati, i.e. respondent no.3 was the original tenure holder of the disputed plot i.e. Chak No.1178. During the consolidation operations in the Village, respondent no.3 through a registered sale deed dated 27.8.1982 sold the disputed plot to the predecessor of respondent nos.4 to 16. Consequently, at the instance of the predecessor of respondent nos.4 to 16, Case No.369 under Section 12 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) was registered before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O) on 11.9.1984. The C.O vide his order dated 23.6.1989, allowed the objections filed by the predecessor of respondent nos. 4 to 16 and directed that the predecessor of respondent no.4 to 16 be recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plot in place of Smt. Bhagwati i.e. respondent no.3. It has been stated in the writ petition that before the order dated 23.6.1989, a notification under Section 52-(1) of the Act, 1953 was issued and published in the official gazette ceasing the consolidation operations in the Village. However, as the case registered under Section 12 of the Act, 1953 was pending on the date the notification was issued under Section 52(1) of the Act, therefore, the C.O proceeded with the case in view of Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953. The order dated 23.6.1989 was passed ex parte against respondent no.3 as she did not appear in the said case. On 26.5.2004, the respondent no. 3 executed another sale deed in favour of the petitioners transferring the disputed plots to the petitioners. On 15.12.2004 i.e. after 15 years of the order dated 23.6.1989, and almost 16 years after the notification issued under Section 52(1) of the Act, 1953, the respondent no.3 filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) against the order dated 23.6.1989 passed by the C.O. It appears from the records annexed with the writ petition that the said appeal was initially numbered as Appeal No.819 of 2004 but was subsequently renumbered as Appeal No.24/148 of 2016-17. In the appeal filed by her, the respondent no. 3 alleged that the sale deed dated 27.8.1982 was not executed by her and in any case the sale deed was executed without any prior permission of the S.O.C as required under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, 1953 and therefore, void and no rights accrued in favour of the predecessor of respondent nos. 4 to 16 on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed.

(2.) The S.O.C vide his judgment and order dated 31.12.2016, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 23.6.1989 passed by the C.O. In his order dated 31.12.2016, the S.O.C recorded his finding that no prior permission of the S.O.C as required under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, 1953 was obtained by respondent no. 3 before executing the sale deed dated 27.8.1982 and therefore, the said sale deed was void and did not confer any right on the respondent nos. 4 to 16 or their predecessor.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2016, the respondent nos. 4 to 16 filed Revision No. 60/29/138/24 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the D.D.C, Jhansi which has been allowed by the D.D.C vide his order dated 20.2.2019 and the order dated 31.12.2016 passed by the S.O.C has been set aside and the order dated 23.6.1989 passed by the C.O has been restored. In his order dated 20.2.2019, the D.D.C, relying on the certified copy of the case Index Register issued by the record room of the consolidation department, has held that before executing the sale deed dated 27.8.1982, the respondent no. 3 had obtained the prior permission of the S.O.C as required under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, 1953. The order dated 20.2.2019 passed by the D.D.C has been challenged in the present writ petition.