A.P.Sahi - (1.) THE petitioners have come up assailing the order dated 31st January, 2011 contending that the order is erroneous in law and on facts and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error by upholding the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.8.2010.
(2.) IT is to be noted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had allowed a time barred appeal at the instance of the respondent No. 3-Sudhir setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.8.1997, which was in favour of the vendors of the petitioners. The petitioners claim to have acquired the plot in dispute on the basis of registered sale-deeds dated 8.1.1999 and 13.9.1999. On the basis whereof, mutation was ordered in favour of the petitioners in the year 1999 itself under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It is to be noted that the consolidation operations in the village have been denotified in the year 1991. It is also to be noted that an alleged proceeding under the provisions of Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were initiated at the instance of one Dharmpal-respondent No. 8 and Sarjeet-respondent No. 6 alleging that they were the real successors to the land recorded in the name of Smt.Sona Devi widow of late Surajbhan. it is alleged that a compromise was arrived at on 25.6.1997 and accordingly, on the strength of such a compromise, the Consolidation Officer passed an order directing that the name of the vendors of the petitioners be recorded as tenure-holders as against the share of Smt. Sona Devi. The pedigree which is the basis of dispute is extracted hereinbelow: JUDGEMENT_193_ADJ4_2011Image1.jpg
(3.) THE aforesaid pedigree, insofar as, it relates to the adoption of Sudhir was allegedly denied by Sarjeet during the restoration proceedings as stated in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. The respondent No. 3-Sudhir claiming himself to be the adopted son of Ami Singh and also a successor to the holding of Smt. Sona Devi after her death filed a restoration application dated 5.8.1998. The restoration application was rejected on 27.1.1999. Sudhir-respondent No. 3 had also simultaneously filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation against the order dated 19.8.1997.;