R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 dated 18.7.1981, 18.3.1980 and 7.6.1979 respectively.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the Khata No. 221 measuring 2.43 Acre, hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute, was recorded in the basic year in the names of Prasad and Gaya as Bhumid-hars. The petitioner filed an objection claiming that Prasad executed sale deed in his favour of his 1/2 share of the land in dispute and 1/4 share which was owned by Smt. Yasodara was also transferred by Smt. Yasodara in his favour. The petitioner, Afius, according to him, had 3/4 share in the land in dispute. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner was denied by the respondents No. 4 and 5 who have pleaded that no sale deed was ever executed either by Gaya or by Smt. Yasodara in favour of the petitioner. The entire transaction of sale, from the deposit of 20 times rent upto the execution of sale deed, was fraudulent and Farzi. The respondents No. 4 and 5, thus, pleaded that no sale deed was ever executed in favour of the petitioner and that they were entitled to whole land after the death of Prasad and Gaya as they are the heirs and legal representatives. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer, after going through the evidence on the record, recorded findings on the relevant questions against the petitioner. It was held that no sale deed was executed by Prasad or Gaya in favour of the petitioner. Fie was. therefore, legally not entitled to any share in the land in dispute. Having recorded the said findings, the objection filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 7.6.1979. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The appeal filed by the petitioner also met same fate and was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by judgment and order dated 18.3.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after perusing the material on the record and after hearing tire parties, affirmed the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below and dismissed the revision by his judgment and order dated 18.7.1981. Hence the present petition.;