A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ghanshyam Pandey, holding brief of Sri S.S. Shukla, for respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings in relation to an objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A (2) of The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, claiming title over the land in dispute on the basis of a registered Will dated 4.6.1986 said to have been executed by the tenure holder Smt. Parwati. It is undisputed that the Notification under Section 4 of the 1953 Act was published on 1.10.1983. Smt. Parwati had executed the Will and she died on 8.6.1986. The petitioner filed an application on the basis of the Will, which was allowed on 2.1.1987 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The predecessor in interest of the contesting respondent Late Jagat Bahadur Singh filed an appeal against the said order on 2.11.1987 which has been ultimately allowed on 30.8.2010 setting aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer with a direction that the objection should proceed after hearing the contesting respondents, who are claiming title over the land on the basis of a sale-deed dated 27.8.1970 executed by Smt. Parwati. The matter was, accordingly, remitted to the Consolidation Officer to be contested on the claim set up by the petitioner on the basis of a Will and the sale-deed relied on by the respondents predecessor Jagat Bahadur Singh. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh has further pointed out that the Notification under Section 52 de-notifying the village has been issued on 31.3.2003. In the meantime, the contesting respondents have also filed a time-barred objection under Section 9 on 16.9.2010.
(3.) THE submission of Sri Singh is that firstly no dispute was raised or endorsed in CH Form 5 relating to the sale-deed set up by the respondents consequent to the Notification under Section 4 that was issued on 1.10.1983. No objection was filed by Jagat Bahadur Singh which lacuna is now sought to be filled by filing of the objection on 16.9.2010 indicated herein above. Secondly, no application for mutation was either filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, before the consolidation operation had set in nor any steps were taken for mutation by the respondents under Section 12 after the notification of the village under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. He, therefore, submits that the appellate order erroneously observed that the Assistant Consolidation Officer should have taken care of the situation Or the petitioner should have impleaded the contesting respondent. He submits that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation amounts to condoning the latches on the part of the contesting respondent inasmuch as if Jagat Bahadur Singh had failed to file any objection under Section 9-A (2) of the 1953 Act on the basis of the sale-deed inasmuch as during the continuance of consolidation operations, the bar of Section 11-A would operate and after the closure of consolidation operations under Section 52, the bar of Section 49 would operate. THEse statutory bars, therefore, cannot be condoned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to re-open a dispute about which the respondents had never set up a claim before the appropriate forum. He submits that this stands substantiated by the fact that the respondents have now on 16.9.2010 filed a heavily time barred objection under Section 9 of the 1953 Act. The contention, therefore, is that in the absence of any appropriate objection having been filed by the respondents, they are not entitled to contest the objection of the petitioner.;