S.R.Misra. J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, petitioner Ibrahim Khan has challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28-7-1984, by means of which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision riled by the petitioner and allowed two revisions of Abdul Aziz and Shariff The brief facts given rise to this writ petition are as follows :- Properties owned by the petitioner shown in pedigree were declared to be evacuee property and was acquired by the Custodian to the extent of 19/66 share of the total land of 62 Bigha 14 Biswa. Such land acquired by the custodian was subsequently purchased by Ismail Khan, Mohammad Sher and Abdul Aziz. Accordingly a certificate of sale was issued by the Assistant Custodian, Agra on 11-7-1962, giving the details of the land, a copy of which is also on the record as annexure-l to this writ petition. Subsequently, the name of the respective purchasers of their evacuee property was mutated in the papers on the respective land. According to the petitioner the remaining area after excluding the portion acquired by the Custodian and sold, 44 Bigha and 13 Biswa was the remaining land of Khata No. 82 when the notification under section 4 of the CH Act was made and thereafter the Consolidation Authorities are required to decide the shares of the respective parties in this area of 44 Bighas 13 Biswa.
(2.) IN the basic year, the names of Ibrahim, Abdul Aziz and Shaukat, Bundu Khan and Bashir. Manzur Khan, Mohd. Sharif and Latif, Smt. Hamidan, Abdul Aziz, Kaley Khan, Shamshuddin and the Asstt. Custodian were recorded. Five sets of objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer. The first objection was filed by Ibrahim on the ground that the name of Assistant Custodian had wrongly been recorded as the land acquired by the Assistant Custodian had already been purchased by the respective transferees and their names have been recorded He has further pleaded that the name of Bundu Khan was also wrongly recorded as he had been declared evacuee. According to him Aziz Khan s/o Nazir died issueless and hence his name be expunged and thus he claimed 4/9 share. Another objection was filed by Aziz on the ground that the name of Azim s/o Nazir be expunged as he had died issueless. Shaukat died leaving a son Ashiq Ali to be his heir. He further pleaded that the name of Sharif and Latif be expunged. Third objection was filed by Anwar Khan Fourth objection was filed by Kaley Khan alias Kalian and the last objection was filed by Smt Khatoon Begum, according to whom her father had got l/4th share which was succeeded by Smt. Hamidan, widow of Bundu Khan. Bundu Khan had also died and Smt. Khatoon Begum claimed herself to be entitled being the daughter of Smt. Hamidan.
(3.) CONSOLIDATION Officer rejected the objection of Anwar and Smt. Khatoon Begum and allowed the objection of Ibrahim and Kaiey Khan. The CONSOLIDATION Officer held that the name of the Assistant Custodian be expunged in place of Shaukat Ali, the name of his son Ashiq Ali be recorded and at the place of Bundu Khan, Manzur Khan and Ramzani the names of their heir Bashir be recorded and it was further held that the name of Smt. Hamidan be expunged and determined the shares of the parties accordingly including the share of the petitioner as 3/8th. He further held that Smt. Khatun Begum has failed to prove herself to be the daughter of Smt. Hamidan. Six appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. All the appeals were consolidated and disposed of by a common judgment. The Settlement Officer Consolidation held that Bundu Khan was never declared evacuee and hence his share comes to 1/4th which was succeeded by Smt. Hamidan. He further held that Smt Khatoon being the daughter of Hamidan also succeeded and hence the Settlement Officer, Consolidation determined the share of Smt. Khatoon Begum as 1/4th and the share of Ibrahim as 17/48th. Three revisions were preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation-one by Abdul Aziz v. Ibrahim, second Ibrahim v. Smt. Khatoon Begum and others and the third Sharif v. Bundu Khan. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the revision of the petitioner, Ibrahim and allowed the other revisions vide his order dated 28-7-1984.;