- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, Laharpur, and also the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Assistant Collector, First Class, Laharpur, in Appeal filed under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that certain land was sold in Village Ganeshpur, Pargana and Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitapur, by the Opposite party no.4 through a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, an application was moved for mutation proceedings by the purchasers which was registered as Case No.35/993 Proclamation for objections were issued. The opposite party no.3 submitted an objection on 27.10.2016 alleging that the property in question was disputed as the ownership was obtained on the basis of an order dated 08.09.2014 passed on the basis of fraud and concealment, the same order was challenged. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said objections contending that after the order dated 08.09.2014 was passed in favour of Narendra Kumar, Opposite party no.4 by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The same has also been implemented under Rule 109 of the Consolidation of the Holdings Rules and Narendra Kumar being the recorded tenure holder of the property in question, the petitioner had got the land from Narendra Kumar. The Opposite party no.2 by the order dated 24.02.2018 has stayed the Mutation proceedings on account of pendency of dispute raised by the Objector, said to be pending before the Dy. Director (Consolidation), Sitapur till final decision of the court concerned i.e. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur. The petitioner preferred an Appealbefore the Sub Divisional Officer but the Appeal has also been rejected.;