- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short DDC), Azamgarh dated 24-10-1980 passed in Revision No. 66 under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. By the aforesaid judg ment, the DDC although has dismissed the revision as was filed by the Respondent No. 4 but at the same time, the land in dispute was declared to be Gaon Sabha property.
(2.) HEARD Aparna Burman, learned Advocate who appeared on behalf. of the petitioners. No one has appeared on be half of the opposite parties. The dispute in this writ petition relates to land as comprised in Khata No. 309 of village Rammopur, Pargana, Nauhara Phoolpur District Azamgarh. Over this land in the basic year record, the names of the petitioners was recorded as Sirdar. An objection was filed by the Respondent No. 4, claiming her rights on the ground that the land originally belonged to one Bideshi, who was succeeded by his wife Smt. Pancho and after Smt. Pancho, the Respondent No. 4 claimed herself to be the owner/successor being the daughter of Smt. Pancho and Bideshi. It was further claimed 'by Respondent No. 4 that she had been in possession over the land and therefore, it was prayed that the name of the petitioners be expunged. The claim of Respondent No. 4 was contested by the petitioners on the ground that they have been recorded in Class-4 by the order of Naib-Tehsildar and the name of Smt. Pancho itself was ordered to be deleted by the order of Naib-Tehsildar. It was further claimed by the petitioners that a Suit was filed by Gaon Sabha under Sec tion 209 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act which was registered as Original Suit No. 12 which was- dismissed on 11-5-1957 and, there fore, it was claimed that the petitioners being in possession throughout and no steps having been taken by the respondent No. 4 or by the Respondent No. 5, their rights cannot be negatived.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer, by its order dated 27-12-1975 dismissed the ob jection of Respondent No. 4 against which the appeal filed by her was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolida tion but the matter having been taken up by the petitioners before the Revisional Court, the matter was remanded by the DDC by its judgment and order dated 6-11-1978 to the S. O. C. with certain direc tions to decide: (i) Whether Smt. Murati (Respondent No. 4) was unmarried or not when Smt. Pancho died (ii) when Smt. Pancho died. After the aforesaid remand the S. O. C. after hearing both the parties on 3-10-1979 dismissed the appeal of Respondent No. 4 after returning the following findings; (i) It is not proved that Smt. Murati is the daughter of Bideshi (ii) Smt. Pancho died before enforcement Act No. 20 of 1954 (iii) Smt. Murati was married prior to the enforce ment of Amendment Act, 1954. It is against this order of S. O. C, a revision was filed by the Respondent No. 4 before the DDC which came up to be decided by the judgment, impugned in this writ petition, by which, although the revision of Respondent No. 4 was dis missed but at the same time, the right of the petitioners also stood negatived.;