- (1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. Heard Shri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) PARVAT, Vikramajeet and Mahadeo were brothers. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the share of PARVAT. Smt. Kasturia, respondent No. 2 since deceased filed objections under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming the share of PARVAT. The objections were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 11-10-1971, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, rejected the application for condoning the delay. Appeal against the order preferred by Smt. Kasturia before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was also dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable as what had been decided by the Consolidation Officer was only an application for condonation of delay. The Revision filed by Smt. Kasturia has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 21-12-1972 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition ). The Consolidation Officer relied upon the statement of Smt. Kasturia made before him that she had knowledge about the case between Balgovind son of Mahadeo and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and her case that she had no knowledge about the proceedings was false. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision and has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer with direction to decide the case on merits. The finding is that Smt. Kasturia is the daughter of Parvat and Prima facie she has title to the property and it was necessary in the interest of justice to provide her opportunity of hearing. Shri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no finding on the sufficient of cause has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that the Settlement Officer Consolidation Shri J. N. Dwivedi who had decided the appeal had also decided the revision as Deputy Director of Consolidation and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that in a mutation case Smt. Kasturia had admitted that she had no share in the property. Copy of the compromise arrived at in the mutation case has been filed in the writ petition as Annexure 5. It is also submitted that Smt. Kasturia was a married daughter of Parvat and was set up by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 after the decision in the consolidation proceedings holding that Mahadeo father on the petitioner had a 2/3rd share and Vikramajeet's branch had a 1/3rd share. It is submitted that the brother is a preferential heir to the married daughter and therefore Smt. Kasturia would not inherit the share of Parvat which would go to his brothers, a circumstances to show that Smt. Kasturia has no case and has been set up.
(3.) I shall take up the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners one by one. As regards the finding on the question of sufficiency of cause, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no doubt not recorded any specific finding that sufficient explanation for the delay has been given. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied upon the affidavit of Smt. Kasturia that she is an illiterate lady and the defendants had been assuring her that she has a share and it was when they denied it that she filed the objections. From the facts on records it does appear that Smt. Kasturia was a rustic lady. The finding that she was illiterate has not been assailed.;