- (1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.3.1975 and 27.7.1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short, "DDC") in revision No. 854/199 and revision No. 855/ 200, in between Rehman v. Sanjira. vide order dated 21.3.1975, the DDC has set aside the order dated 3.1.1974 and decided the case in terms of the compromise, whereas vide order dated 27.7.1976, the restoration application, filed by the petitioners, who claim themselves to be the purchasers of the land in dispute from Sanjira, who was the respondent in the aforesaid revisions. Heard Sri. S.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. It is stated in the writ petition that Chak No. 21 Village Sonughat and plots in chak No. 14 Village Pipra Chandrabhan were recorded in the basic year in the name of Kurban S/o. Bandhoo. During the consolidation proceedings the chaks were formed in the name of Kurban and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 did not lay their claim till the allotment of the chaks in the name of Kurban. On 9.11.1977, after death of Kurban, his mother Sanjira (widow of Bandhu) filed objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Deoria for being recorded over the plots in dispute in place of late Bandhu, being widow of Bandhu (father of Kurban and mother of deceased). The Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.7.1972, decided the case in favour of Sanjira holding her to be the mother of Kurban, deceased and widow of Bandhu and ordered her name to be recorded over the chaks belonging to deceased Kurban. Against the order dated 29.7.1972, the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the ground that Smt. Sanjira was not mother of Kurbaan and he was only heir, hence name of Sanjira may not be entered in place of the deceased. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 29.7.1972 and by setting aside the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the matter was remanded back before the Consolidation Officer.
(2.) After remand, it appears, Sanjira and Rehman have entered into compromise, but the Consolidation Officer did not accept the compromise and the case was decided on merit. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 12.2.1973, directed to record the name of Sanjira over the chaks in dispute, copy of this order has been brought on record as annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer has also recorded that the compromise was not in accordance with the rules, therefore, he declined to accept the compromise and passed the order on the basis of material produced before him on merit.
(3.) Thereafter, two appeals were preferred by the respondent Rehman before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the appeals were dismissed on 25.6.1973. The copy of the judgment has been brought on record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, dismissing the petitioners' appeals, two revisions were filed by the respondent No. 3 before the DDC. The revisions were heard and decided vide order dated 3.1.1974, by which the revisions were dismissed.;