RESHMA Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 30.4.2019 passed by this Court, service of notice on respondent nos.2 and 3 is deemed sufficient. List has been revised. No one has put in appearance for the aforesaid respondents. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No.188. One Akbar Beg was the original tenure holder of the disputed plot. Petitioner is the daughter of Akbar Beg and was unmarried at the time of his death.

(3.) It is admitted that respondent no.3, Fatma Begum, is the widow of Akbar Beg and the mother of the petitioner. There is some dispute regarding Akthar Beg i.e. respondent no. 2. During the consolidation proceedings, the respondent no.2 claimed to be the son of Akbar Beg but the said fact is denied by the petitioner. Akhtar Beg was a minor at the time of death of Akbar Beg. After the death of Akbar Beg, who died on 5.3.2001 during the consolidation operations in the Village, the respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) to be recorded as a tenure holder of the disputed plot in place of Akbar Beg. On the aforesaid application, Case No.467 was registered before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O) and on the basis of a compromise between respondent nos. 2 and 3, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were recorded as co-tenure holders of the disputed plot by order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the C.O. in Case No.467.