HONBLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA),J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Amit Saxena and Sri R.S. Kushwaha, for the petitioner and Sri P.R. Maurya and Sri A.N. Srivastava, for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 19.01.2013, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 29.04.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.01.2014, rejecting the application for amendment of the objection filed by the petitioner, arising out of proceedings under Section 9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner filed an objection (registered as Case No. 203) under Section 9 - A of the Act, for recording his name over 1/2 share of the land recorded in khata 100 of village Subhashkarpur, pargana and district Ghazipur. The petitioner took the case that the land in dispute originally belonged to Maghau, who was inherited by his two sons Baldev and Ram Davar. Ram Davar had only one son Sita Ram, who had two daughters. The petitioner is the son of Ishlokia, daughter of Sita Ram and inherited the property of Sita Ram, maternal grandfather after his death. Thereafter he exchanged his properties of villages Chandrasenpal and M. Saraipara with other co -sharers from the land of khata in dispute as such his share has become 1/2. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the objection on 27.07.2011/10.08.2011. By the amendment, he took plea that Baldev brother of Ram Davar died issueless and his share was also inherited by Ram Davar and thereafter by the petitioner. In the amendment application the objection was invited and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 14.09.2011 allowed the amendment application as no objection was filed.
(3.) THE respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 14.09.2011, on the ground that on 14.09.2011, no argument was heard on the amendment application. The petitioner filed an objection in the recall application and stated that in compliance of the order dated 14.09.2011, the amendment has already been incorporated in the objection as such recall application was liable to be rejected. The recall application was allowed by order dated 29.09.2011 and the order dated 14.09.2011 was recalled. Then the petitioner filed an application dated 13.10.2011 with the allegation that the application which was allowed on 29.09.2011 was not signed by either of the parties or their counsel as such no order could have been passed on this application. On the application of the petitioner, the order dated 29.09.2011 was recalled on the same day i.e. on 13.10.2011. The respondents then filed an application on 13.10.2011 for recall of the order passed on that day. It is alleged that the application was heard and was rejected by order dated 20.10.2011 by Consolidation Officer.;