RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay for the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.2007, by which the application filed by the petitioner for impleading him as opposite party in the proceedings initiated by Shanker Lal (respondent -3) has been rejected and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.4.2013, dismissing the revision filed against the aforesaid order. Shanker Lal filed an application u/s 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for recording his name over the land in dispute on the basis of patta granted by the Land Management Committee to him. The petitioner filed an application for his impleadment as opposite party in the aforesaid application. The CO by order dated 22.11.2007 held that the petitioner could not produce any evidence to show his locus standi in the matter,as such, he was neither necessary, nor proper party in the proceedings. On these findings, the application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner filed a time -barred revision (registered as Revision No. 107 of 2011 -12) on 22.9.2010. In the meantime, the petitioner initiated a proceeding before the SDO u/s 122(4F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, in which, by order dated 31.3.2008, the name of the petitioner was directed to be mutated over plot no. 4098 (area 0.809 hectares). The DDC by the order dated 25.4.2013, held that the order of CO was interlocutory in nature, as such, the revision was not maintainable. He further found that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was a person interested in the matter.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has contested the proceedings u/s 33/39 initiated by Shanker Lal upto the stage of Commissioner, in which, application of Shanker Lal was rejected on his contest. He further submits that the claim of Shanker Lal on the basis of patta has already been rejected by the CO by order dated 26.6.1997, accordingly, further proceedings u/s 12 was not maintainable. In case, the petitioner be permitted to be impleaded in the proceedings, then he may contest the matter and bring on record all the evidence in this respect. Since the petitioner has been declared as bhumidhar with non -transferable right by the order of SDO dated 31.3.2008, as such, right, title and possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute has been established. In such circumstance, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party, or at least, entitled to be heard before the CO. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.;