RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) NOTICE on behalf of respondent -1 has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondent -2 has been accepted by Sri S.A. Murtaza and on behelf of respondent -11 has been accepted by Sri Brij Kumar Yadav. Apart from respondent -2, the other respondents are proforma parties. The counsel for respondent -2 states that the facts necessary for decision of the writ petition have been stated in the writ petition are admitted. Counter Affidavit is not required to be filed. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is decided finally on merit.
(2.) HEARD Kunal Ravi Singh, for the petitioner and Sri S.A. Murtaza, for respondent -2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.09.2013, by which the revision filed by respondent -2 has been allowed and the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 08.03.2000, 10.03.2004 and 27.01.2005 and the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 09.09.2011, passed in title proceedings, under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have set aside and the matter has been remanded to Consolidation Officer, for fresh trial on merit.
(3.) THE dispute relates to land recorded in Khatas 29, 72 and 94 of village Sambharpur, district Kanpur, which were recorded in the name of Maiku son of Sukkha. One Shiv Dulare filed an objection (registered as Case No. 442) under Section 9 -A of the Act, claiming 1/2 share in the land in dispute. Ganga Prasad, father of respondent -2 filed an objection, claiming his right by adverse possession over the khatas in dispute. Gajodhar, Sadhari and Chhote Lal filed an objection claiming themselves to the heir of Maiku, recorded tenure holder on the basis of will executed by him. The objections were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer, who after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them, by order dated 08.03.2000, held that the name of Ganga Prasad was wrongly recorded over khata 94. Neither adverse possession of Ganga Prasad was not proved nor he was heir of Maiku. On these findings objection of Ganga Prasad was dismissed and his name was directed to be deleted from khata 94. The objection of Gajodhar, Sadhari and Chhote Lal was allowed and the names of Sadhari and heirs of Gajodhar and Chhote Lal were directed to be recorded. The petitioner is an heir of Sadhari.;