- (1.) Heard Sri I.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel, represents respondent Nos. 2 to 9. Sri Shiva Kant Tiwari, learned Counsel, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3, that is, Bharat Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and Ranvijay @ Guddu. The Vakalatnama filed today is taken on record.
(2.) This writ petition was presented in this Court in the year 1981, assailing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad on 30.9.1981, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, disposing of four revisions brought by respondent No. 4, Daya Ram, since dead, now represented by his legal heirs and legal representatives. By the said judgment and order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad had set aside the judgment and order rendered by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
(3.) From perusal of the record, it emerges that the dispute relates to Chak No. 228, having an area of 6 Biga, 8 Biswa and 2 Dhoors, situate in Village Jamunipur, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad, now District Ambedkar Nagar. Initially at the time of commencement of consolidation proceedings in the concerned Village, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of one Bisai. It further emerges from the record that Bisai, the original tenureholder, had died during pendency of the consolidation proceedings in the Village leaving behind his widow, Smt. Manraji. This couple was issueless. Objections were filed by the respondent No. 2, Dayaram, claiming himself to be Bisai's wife's Brother's son (Bisai's Brother-in-Law's son), under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, alleging that he had obtained a sale deed executed by Bisai, transferring his Chak No. 228 in his favour on 25.8.1971. Upon this, Bisai, the trenureholder from whom the land was alleged to have been purchased, reacted and filed objections before the Consolidation Officer. In his objections, Bisai has contended that he had never executed any sale deed. Since, he was issueless, Daya Ram, being his Brother-in-Law's son (Dhanpal's son), used to visit him to look after him during his illness. The alleged sale deed was a fraudulent transaction. However, during pendency of the litigation, Bisai had died. The Consolidation Officer, on the application submitted by Smt. Manraji, widow of Bisai, the tenureholder, had ordered for mutation of her name being the legal heir and successor of Bisai.;