RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.1.2007 by which he has consolidated Case nos. 117 and 118 filed by Biri Singh, respondent no.6, under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") along with Case no.10 under Section 9A(2) of the Act filed by the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute. In the basic consolidation record the land in dispute was recorded in the names Daroli, son of Tunda. Chhotey, son of Sukh Ram, father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner no.3 were reported to be in possession over it. On the basis of the claim raised by the father of the petitioners, a case under Section 9A(2) of the Act was registered i.e. Case no.10. In the meantime, Smt. Champee Devi also filed an objection for recording her name claiming herself to be daughter of Daroli. In the meantime, Champee Devi executed a sale deed dated 19.1.2004 in favour of Biri Singh, respondent no.6. It is alleged that as at that time there was a Government Order, which directed the Sub Registrar to send the papers for mutation directly as such on the report of the Sub Registrar a case under Section 12 of the Act was registered in which Biri Singh could not appear and it was dismissed in default on 25.7.2005. Biri Singh has filed a separate application under Section 12 of the Act, which was also dismissed by order dated 26.2.2009 on the ground that second application moved by Biri Singh was not maintainable. In the meantime the other applications were also filed , registered as Case nos. 117 and 118. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 20.1.2007 directed to consolidate Case nos. 117 and 118 along with Case no.10 under Section 9A(2) of the Act. The petitioners challenged the order dated 20.1.2007 in Appeal No.183/2012 -13 which was dismissed by order dated 22.3.2013 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The petitioners then filed a revision (registered as Revision no.2/2012 -13, which has also been dismissed by order dated 30.7.2013 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners submits that the applications filed by Biri Singh, respondent no.6, after passing order dated 25.7.2005 were not maintainable. He submits that filing of successive applications is an abuse of process of the Court, accordingly, Case nos. 117 and 118, which were registered subsequently, were not maintainable and were not liable to be consolidated along with the objection of the petitioners filed under Section 9A(2) of the Act. He further submits that the name of Smt. Champee Devi was never recorded over the land in dispute and it has not been proved that Champee Devi ever inherited the properties of Daroli as such sale deed executed by her is a void document and it cannot be given effect to in the consolidation records so long as it is not found by the Consolidation Officer that Smt. Champee Devi inherited the property in dispute. He further submits that since the property in dispute has already been in possession of the father of the petitioners from long before the start of the consolidation operation as such Daroli has also lost his title over it. In such circumstances, the execution of the sale deed as well as the proceeding on its basis is mere harassment of the petitioners and the order of the Consolidation Officer directing for consolidation of the aforesaid cases under Section 12 of the Act was illegal and liable to be set aside.;