DURGAWATI Vs. THE CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed praying for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.2.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gyanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (respondent No. 3) and the order dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow (respondent No. 1).

(3.) The facts of the case are that during the consolidation operations held in the village, an order dated 7.10.1994 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 1125 whereby the concerned officer had directed that the name of one Chhotey Lal may be entered in the records against plot Nos. 140A and 140B in place of the original tenure holder Thakur Prasad who had died. The order dated 7.10.1994 is not annexed with the writ petition or with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 13. However, the contents of the said order are evident from the order dated 20.1.2000 passed by respondent no. 3 which is annexed as annexure no. 8 to the writ petition. Against the order dated 7.10.1994 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 1125, the petitioner filed an appeal No. 1263 of 1999 under Section 11 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before respondent no. 3. The petitioner was claiming title over the property of Thakur Prasad by virtue of alleged Will dated 5.7.1985 executed by Thakur Prasad in her favour. It appears that in appeal No. 1263 of 1999, petitioner and the opposite parties in the said appeal entered into a compromise wherein the opposite parties in the said appeal accepted the claim of petitioner over the disputed properties. It is noteworthy that the respondent nos. 4 to 14 were not impleaded as opposite party in appeal No. 1263 of 1999. The respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 20.1.2000 allowed the appeal relying on the aforesaid compromise and directed that the name of petitioner be recorded against plot Nos. 140A, 140B, 298, 20 and 21 after deleting the name of Thakur Prasad from the records. It is noteworthy that in the aforesaid appeal No. 1263 of 1999, the husband of the petitioner was one of the opposite parties and had agreed to the aforesaid compromise. When the respondent nos. 3 to 14 came to know about the aforesaid compromise and the order dated 20.1.2000, they filed a restoration application before respondent no. 3 praying that the order dated 20.1.2000 be recalled and appeal No. 1263 of 1999 be heard on merits. The restoration application was filed, amongst other grounds, on the ground that respondent nos. 4 to 11 were the original holders of plot No. 20 included in the compromise and order dated 20.1.2000 of respondent no. 3. While aforesaid appeal was pending before respondent no. 3, petitioner filed a transfer application (Transfer Application No. 408 of 2000) before respondent no. 1 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.1.2001 passed by respondent no. 1. Subsequently, respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 14.2.2001 allowed the restoration application filed by respondent nos. 4 to 11 to the extent it related to chak no. 20 and 21 and retained his previous order so far as chak nos. 140, 140A and 298 were concerned. It is these orders that have been brought under challenge in the present writ petition. The writ petition, so far as the same relates to writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.1.2001 is concerned, has become in fructuous inasmuch as transfer application was filed by respondent no. 1 praying that appeal No. 1263 of 1999 pending before respondent no. 3 be transferred to some other court. The said application was dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 30.1.2001 and subsequently appeal No. 1263 of 1999 has been decided by respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 14.2.2001. Apart from above, there is no illegality in the order dated 30.1.2001 passed by respondent no. 1 as the said order has been passed on the ground that the applicants were not able to show any ground which affected the integrity and working of the court and therefore, the transfer application was not maintainable. I do not find any illegality in the said order.