R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) 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 dated 19.4.1994, 26.6.1986 and 27.1.1984 passed by the respondents No. 1 to 32 respectively in the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short "the Act", dismissing the objection, appeal and revision filed by the petitioners.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the dispute relates to Khata Nos. 42, 62 and 286 of village Panea Panei, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Maharajganj. On publication of C.H. Form No. 5 in the village, three sets of objections were filed, first by Khedu Prasad son of Satya Narain, second by Smt. Chhanguri, the petitioner, and third by Smt. Chhanguri, daughter of Tunnu (Chhunnu). In the present case we are not concerned with the objections of Khedu Prasad and Smt. Chhanguri, daughter of Tunnu (Chhunnu), as they are not the petitioners. The present petition has only been filed by the present petitioner Smt. Chhanguri, daughter of Mahadeo. In brief, it was pleaded by the petitioner in the objection filed under section 9-A of the Act that shell had 1/9th share in the land in dispute which she inherited from her father and 1/18th share from the deceased Ja-muna alias Mannu as the widow of Jamuna as alleged to have remarried with Chand, therefore, she was entitled to the share of Jamuna also, which devolved firstly on Mahadeo, his father, and thereafter upon her. In all she claimed 1/6th share in the land in dispute. The claim of the petitioner was denied by the contesting respondents who have pleaded that the petitioner was a married daughter of Mahadeo at the time of Mahadeo his real brother Chhunnu was alive, therefore, she was legally not entitled to any share in the land in dispute. The petitioner also claimed that there was a compromise arrived at between the parties in which 1/15th share was given to her in Khata No. 286 but subsequently illegally the same was also not given to her by the Consolidation Officer. It may be noted that so far as the compromise is concerned, it has been stated in the counter affidavit of Ram Pyare that the said compromise was not signed by all the co-sharers and the Same was consequently set aside by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 20.12.1977. A copy of the said order has also been filed as Annexure CA 1. This fact has not been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. The order dated 20.12.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer has become final as the validity of the said order was not challenged by the petitioner after the said order was passed.
(3.) In support of their cases, the parties have produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after perusing the material on record and after hearing the parities dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner and Smt. Chhanguri, daughter of Tunnu (Chhunnu) and the land in dispute was partitioned amongst the heirs of Mahadeo on the basis of family pedigree given in his judgment by the judgment and order dated 27.1.1984. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 27.1.1984, two appeals were filed, one by the petitioner and the other by Smt. Chhanguri, daughter of Tunnu (Chhunnu). The Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties upheld the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer to the effect that the petitioner had no legal right to inherit the property in dispute. It was also held that the compromise alleged to have entered into between the parties was illegal in respect of Khata Nos. 42 and 62. No share was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was illegally given 1/15th share in Khata No. 286 which was legally not permissible as she was married daughter of Mahadeo. It was also held that Smt. Chhanguri, daughter of Tunnu (Chhunnu) also failed to prove her case. She was, therefore, also not entitled to any share in the land m dispute. Having recorded the said findings, the Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed both the appeals by his judgment and order dated 26.6.1986. Challenging the validity of the said order, two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also upheld the findings recorded by the authorities below and dismissed both the revisions by his judgment and order dated 19.4.1994. Hence the present petition.;