ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Shankata Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28 -2 -2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 8 -4 -2002 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Basti. Facts of the case briefly stated are; Ram Bachan father of the petitioner died on 10 -5 -2001. Petitioner filed an application for mutation of his name in place of Ram Bachan, deceased on the basis of registered Will dated 3 -3 -2000. Petitioner filed an application before Assistant Consolidation Officer for mutation of his name in place of deceased father. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order on 20 -6 -2001 on the basis of compromise mutating the name of petitioner on the basis of Will on Chak No. 184 and 213. The Respondent No. 3 claiming wife of Ram Bhawan another son of Ram Bachan filed an appeal against the order dated 20 -6 -2001 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer. The case of Respondent No. 3 in the appeal was that Ram Bachan had two sons petitioner and Ram Bhawan and she is widow of Ram Bhawan. It was stated that Ram Bhawan died during life time of Ram Bachan and she is entitled for share and is in possession. The Will executed in favour of the petitioner was disputed. An objection was filed in the appeal taking various pleas including the plea that petitioner is not wife of Ram Bhawan, however, it was not denied that Ram Bhawan was also son of Ram Bhachan who died earlier. In the appeal no objection was taken by the respondent regarding maintainability of the appeal. The appeal was allowed by Assistant Settlement Officer of consolidation and the order dated 20 -6 -2001 of Assistant Consolidation Officer was set -aside. The case was remitted to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case after taking evidence on merit. Against the said order dated 8 -4 -2002 petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed on 20 - 2 -2003. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order has held that the compromise entered before Assistant Consolidation Officer is not in accordance with Rule 25(A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. He further observed that Respondent No. 2 who claims to be wife of Ram Bhawan is entitled for opportunity and since the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has remitted the case for hearing on merits where parties will have opportunity to place their case, no interference is required. Against the above two orders present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) SHRI Shankata Rai Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the order dated 20 -6 -2001 of Assistant Consolidation Officer was not maintainable, since Respondent No. 2 was not party to the proceeding. It is contended that the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation being without jurisdiction, the Deputy Director of Consolidation also committed error in rejecting the revision. Reliance has been placed by Counsel for the petitioner on two judgments of this Court namely 2003 (94) RD 79 Smt. Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, and the Judgment reported in 2003 (94) RD 405, Bala Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others.;