HONBLE RAJNISH KUMAR,J. - (1.) Heard, Shri A.P. Singh Vatsa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nitin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.4. Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. None appeared for opposite party no.3.
(2.) This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 03.03.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer and judgment and order dated 09.02.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (here-in-after referred as D.D.C.).
(3.) The brief facts, for adjudication of the case in hand, are that the dispute relates to Gata Nos. 216, 187, 271, 273 and 170 of Khata Nos.33 and 34 situated at Village- Fatehpur, Pargana- Jagdishpur, Tahsil- Musafirkhana, District- Sultanpur. The name of the respondent no.3 was recorded in the basic year in Khata Nos.33 and 34. On publication of records two objections were filed. One by Bechu son of Ganga Deen, who was found in possession in the enquiry (Padtal) on plot nos. 216, 271 and 273, claiming on the basis of sale deed executed by the petitioner. The second objection was filed by the petitioner namely Sheo Bahadur son of Ram Aadhar denying that the respondent no.3 is the daughter of the petitioner no.1 and claimed for recording his name and deleting the name of the respondent no.3. The aforesaid two objections were opposed by the respondent no.3 through his guardian Shatrughan son of Mahadev as respondent no.3 was minor. He stated that sale deed executed by Sheo Bahadur son of Ram Aadhar in favour of Bechu is a fraudulent document as the same has been executed by Bahadur son of Ram Aadhar impersonating him as Sheo Bahadur because Sheo Bahadur had died much before execution of sale deed. It was asserted that the respondent no.3 Km. Nirmala was the daughter of Sheo Bahadur and the only legal heir.;