BHUPAL Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List has been revised. No one appears for the respondents.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner was recorded as Bhumidhar in the basic year records of Khata No. 99 which included Plot Nos. 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1893. During the consolidation proceedings in the Village, the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mathura, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') for permission to sell his Bhumidhari plots. On the aforesaid application of the petitioner, the S.O.C. vide his order dated 18.2.1976 granted permission to the petitioner to sell Plot Nos. 1884, 1885 and 1886 and the said permission was valid for a period of 30 days. The petitioner executed the sale-deed regarding Plot Nos. 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1893 in favour of respondent No. 4 on 23.7.1976. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 filed objections under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') praying to be recorded as Bhumidhar of Plot Nos. 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1893. On the aforesaid objections of respondent No. 4, Case No. 3059 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Consolidation Officer, Mathura, i.e., respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'). The C.O. vide his order dated 31.12.1978 disposed of the objections filed by respondent No. 4 directing that respondent No. 4 be recorded as Asami of the disputed plots and the petitioner be retained as Bhumidhar of the same in the revenue records. In his order dated 31.12.1978 the C.O. held that as the sale-deed was executed on 23.7.1976, i.e., after 30 days of the order dated 18.12.1976, therefore the respondent No. 4 had no right of mutation on the basis of the said sale-deed, but as the respondent No. 4 was admittedly in possession of the disputed plots on the basis of the sale-deed, therefore he was entitled to be recorded as Asami (Varg 7) of the disputed plots. The order dated 31.12.1978 passed by the C.O. was challenged by both the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The appeals filed by the petitioner were numbered as Appeal No. 42 and 110 and the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 was numbered as Appeal No. 107. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 31.5.1979 directed that respondent No. 4 be recorded as Bhumidhar of Plot Nos. 1884, 1885 and 1886 and also set aside the order passed by the C.O. regarding Plot No. 1893 whereby the C.O. had directed that respondent No. 4 be recorded as Asami (Varg 7) of Plot No. 1893. Against the order dated 31.5.1979 passed by the S.O.C. the petitioner and respondent No. 4 filed Revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. The revision filed by the petitioner was numbered as Revision No. 254/286 and the revision filed by respondent No. 4 was numbered as Revision No. 251/283. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 11.4.1980 allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 4 and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. The effect of the order dated 11.4.1980 passed by the D.D.C. was that respondent No. 4 was recorded as Bhumidhar of Plot No. 1884, 1885 and 1886 and as Asami (Varg 7) of Plot No. 1893. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review application before the D.D.C. for review of his order dated 11.4.1980, which was also dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 24.2.1981. The orders dated 24.2.1981 and 11.4.1980 passed by the D.D.C. as well as order dated 31.5.1979 and 31.12.1978 passed by the S.O.C. and C.O. have been challenged in the present writ petition.