KRISHNA MURARI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21 -7 -1983 allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2 and setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Consolidation Officer.
(2.) THE facts are that during consolidation proceedings chak Nos. 210 and 161 were carved out in favour of one Mangaru S/o Tulsi. He died in 1975. After his death petitioner moved an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for mutation of his name as a legal heir claiming himself to be the brother of deceased Mangaru. Two more applications were filed; one by respondent No. 2 claiming mutation of her name as daughter of the/deceased and another by one Raghunath claiming himself to be the son of the brother of deceased. Both the aforesaid applications were moved on 24 -10 -1975. Undisputed pedegree of the parties is as follows : Tulsi Mangaru Sheo Pujan Kartallu Raj Kumari married Raghunath and others daughter, wife of Sakaldeep The Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31 -10 -1975 allowed the application of the petitioner while application moved respondent No. 2 and Raghunath remained pending. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 as well as Raghunath moved applications dated 3 -6 -1976 and 22 -6 -1976 respectively for recalling the order dated 31 -10 -1975 passed on the application of the petitioner. For the first time in her recall application respondent No. 2 made a reference of a Will dated 23 -2 -1975 in her favour by deceased Mangaru. There was no whisper about this Will in her application dated 24 -10 -1975 filed under Section 12 of the Act. The said applications were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7 -2 -1977 against which appeals were filed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 11 -7 -1977 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer. After considering the claim of all the parties the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17 -3 -1979 rejected the claim of respondent No. 2 as well as Raghunath. Feeling aggrieved contesting respondent No. 2 and Raghunath both filed appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The two appeals were consolidated and dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 29 -7 -1981. Raghunath did not challenge the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the same became final as against him. However, the contesting respondent No. 2 filed a revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned judgment dated 21 -7 -1983.
(3.) I have heard Sri A.S. Diwekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjit Asthana, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 2.;