- (1.) HEARD Sri R. C. Singh, for the petitioners and Sri R. K. Pandey, for the respondent -3.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent -2) dated 13.08.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent -1) dated 13.09.2013, passed in proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute between the parties relates to plot no. 45 (area (0.104 hectare), 46 (area 0.855 hectare) and 47 (area 0.036 hectare) of village Koilahapatti, pargana Jamaur, district Shahjahanpur, which were recorded in the name of Ahmad Ali Khan (respondent -3), during consolidation proceeding. The petitioners filed an application (registered as Case No. 22) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutating their names on the basis of a sale deed, allegedly executed by Ahmad Ali Khan in favour of Angad Singh (predecessors of the petitioners). It is alleged that Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 26.12.1997, allowed the application and directed for mutation of the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute.
(3.) AHMAD Ali Khan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 43/114), from the order dated 26.12.1997, on 10.06.2011. In the memorandum of the appeal, it has been stated that he had never executed any sale deed in favour of Angad Singh. He did never receive any notice from the Assistant Consolidation Officer, nor entered into compromise before him. Entire proceedings before Assistant Consolidation Officer are fabricated, behind his back. It has also been stated that Angad Singh had been his reliable man, who had been cultivating the land on 'batai' and after his death the petitioners had been cultivating the land on 'batai'. Neither Angad Singh nor after his death the petitioners had been in exclusive possession over the land in dispute. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent -2), who by dated 13.08.2012 held that the record of Assistant Consolidation Officer, in which order dated 26.12.1997 was allegedly passed was not available, which shows that on the basis of fabricated order dated 26.12.1997, the names of the petitioners have been mutated. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and the alleged order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 26.12.1997 was set aside. The matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trail on merit and decide the application of the petitioners afresh.;