- (1.) HEARD Sri M.D.Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior counsel assisted Sri R.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Counsel for both the parties submits that in this case, at this stage, only a legal question is involved and the same may be decided without inviting any counter affidavit. Therefore, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.12.2008 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation (in short S.O.C.) in Appeal No.596 (Vidya Devi Vs. Ram Lolarak and others) and order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short D.D.C) in Revision No.1965/2354/4086 (Subhash Chandra Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi and others). Vide order dated 26.12.2008, appeal filed by the respondent No.4 was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the question of mutation after providing opportunity of hearing as well as leading the evidence etc. whereas by the subsequent order, petitioners' revision was dismissed. It appears that Late Ram Lolarak has purchased the land in dispute through registered sale deed dated 22.2.1995. Name of Ram Lolarak was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1998. The property in dispute was recorded in the name of one Dinesh Pratap Singh S/o Ram Lolarak. It is the case of the petitioners that the property was purchased by Ram Lolarak in the name of his son (namely Late Dinesh Pratap) when he was minor of 15 years. Prior to that there was litigation between Ram Lolarak and Smt. Vidya Devi, W/o Late Dinesh Pratap Singh (S/o Ram Lolarak) regarding mutation for the reasons that after death of Dinesh Pratap Singh, name of Ram Lolarak was recorded in the revenue record on 15.4.1980. Against that order, Smt. Vidya Devi has filed an appeal which was allowed and remanded on 3.11.1981 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by this order, late Ram Lolarak has filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation instead of Consolidation Officer. When the matter was pending after remand before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ram Lolarak died on 15.6.2003. Thereafter, no substitution etc. was filed whereas the petitioners' name was already recorded in the year 1998. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 26.12.2008. The petitioners herein have filed revision. In the revision, specific ground was taken that the appeal has been decided against dead person, therefore, it is a nullity. It was also contended that the petitioners ought to have been substituted, alternatively, impleaded as respondents in the appeal as they had already purchased the property way back in the year 1995 and have sufficient interest in the land in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without adverting to this question, has dismissed the revision and maintained the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation by which the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) SRI M.D.Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Counsel contends that the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in maintaining the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation whereas the order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was against the dead person and that was a nullity, in view of the decision of this Court in the cases of Aziz Mohammad (Dead)through Lrs. And another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2008 (104) RD, 470 and Raj Narain and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others, 2009(106) RD 98. He has further contended that since the order is a nullity, therefore, the matter ought to have been remanded before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for deciding the appeal after substituting/ impleading the petitioners as respondent.;