RAMPAL SINGH Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.N.Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, counsel for respondent no.2 and the heirs of respondent no.3.

(2.) During the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises, there was a dispute amongst the co-tenure holders regarding the share of one Behari in the disputed Khata. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of Behari. One Rambhateri is also the daughter of Behari. The petitioner alleged that the share of Prahlad in the disputed Khata had devolved on him by virtue of a Will executed by Prahlad in his favour. Prahlad was one of the co-tenure holder of the disputed Khata. The Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O) and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) rejected the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) Consequently, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) which was numbered as Revision No.170 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 19.1.2011 allowed the aforesaid revision holding that the share of Prahlad had devolved on the petitioner by the Will allegedly executed by Prahlad in his favour. It is evident from the different records annexed with the writ petition and the supplementary affidavits filed by the parties that Behari died after the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that Behari had executed a sale deed of 3 Bigha 2 Biswa of the disputed plot in favour of one of his daughter Rambhateri who in turn executed different sale deeds in favour of certain other persons. As a result of the aforesaid sale deed, the petitioner impleaded Rambhateri and the vendees of Rambhateri as opposite parties in the appeal filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. However, no application to substitute the legal representatives of Behari in place of Behari was filed by the petitioner in appeal even though Behari was impleaded as one of the opposite parties in the appeal and was shown as dead in the memorandum of appeal.