- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner , learned State Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) Facts , in brief , of the present case are that the controversy relates to plot no. 92 situated in village Chhapartala , Pargana Aurangabad District Lakhimpur Kheri ( hereinafter referred to as ' land in question') recorded in the name of one Sri Hulla on the revenue record, who has three sons, namely, Kundan, Rudra and Bhai Lal . After the death of Kundan, his share in the property in question has been claimed by one Gulaboo (now deceased) on the ground that she is the only surviving daughter of deceased Kundan so as per Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the share of Kundan in the land in question shall by way of succession be inherited by her. Further another set of objection has been filed claiming the share of deceased Kundan by the contesting respondents on the ground that they are the sons of Bhai Lal , who is real brothers of Kundan. Learned Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 23.9.2002 has rejected the claim of contesting respondents and allowed the clalim of Smt. Gulaboo. Aggrieved by the said facts , appeal has been filed, dismissed by order dated 8.9.2003.
(3.) Accordingly, a revision has been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri, also dismissed by order dated 30.10.2004. Thereafter, the contesting respondents for redressal of their grievances approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.727 ( Consolidation) of 2005( Ram Kishore and others Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Lakhimpur Kheri and others) in which Smt. Gulaboo was impleded as respondent no.4, allowed by order dated 21.10.2005 with the following directions:- " My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the sale-deed dated 9.9.1988 said to have been executed by Bhai Lal S/o Hulla. This documents shows that even in the year 1988 Bhai Lal was alive and , therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that Bhai Lal died in the year 1975 does not appear to be , prima facie , correct . Since the matter of execution of sale-deed by Bhai Lal in the year 1988 has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in detail, it would be proper that the matter be remanded back for afresh decision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.10.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 943 of 2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned for decision afresh after haring the parties and their learned counsel and to consider as to whether Bhai Lal had executed the sale-deed dated 9.9.1988, a copy of which has been brought on record and if that sale-deed is there it should be presumed that Bhai Lal was alive even on 9.9.1988 and , therefore, the property will be devolved not in a manner as directed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and according to the Schedule of the Zamindari Abolition Act.";